Message344232
> What are your thoughts?
Sigh. I don't object to extending to `k < 0` and `k > n`, but once we've made that extension it's impossible to undo if we decide we'd rather have had the error checking. I'd really like to see some convincing use-cases. Quotes from Concrete Mathematics (fine book though it is) don't amount to use-cases.
I'd say leave it as-is for 3.8, see what the reaction is, and maybe relax constraints in 3.9 if that seems appropriate. But if a majority of others really want to make the change now, that's okay with me. |
|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2019-06-01 21:02:47 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, jwilk, steven.daprano, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, pablogsal, kellerfuchs, FR4NKESTI3N |
| 2019-06-01 21:02:47 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <[email protected]> |
| 2019-06-01 21:02:47 | mark.dickinson | link | issue35431 messages |
| 2019-06-01 21:02:47 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|