On 7/20/07, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the issue of method combination, aspects, and interfaces: Guido has > not made a pronouncement on whether these things may or may not be > accepted at some time in the future. What he has said is that he doesn't > *yet* understand the use case for them, and that these should be > separate PEPs so that we can argue their merits independently. What he's > strongly against (if my understanding is correct) is a "package deal" > where he is forced to accept all of the features, or none.
I'm mellowing out on this a bit -- I'm no longer requesting a separate PEP with all the advanced features (I understand Phillip's argument that that second PEP will just be an easy rejection target). I do want to understand the motivation and implementation for each of the advanced features, so we can have a reasonable discussion about whether a particular feature is really worth adding or can easily be added later by/for the few users who really need it. > It seems to me that PEPs should only be required to explain their > mechanisms if there's some doubt or controversy about the > implementation. But referring to my sandbox/overloading implementation is *not* acceptable; I want whatever that does (not much) spelled out in the PEP for posterity. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
