On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:05:18 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, this I cannot understand. I do believe that there is no better > way to implement the PEP. The PEP very explicitly defines what precisely > functional.partial is, and the implementation follows that specification > very closely.
This is where I get confused as well. PEP 309 specifies a function, and this specification has been accepted for inclusion in Python. The discussion seems to centre around whether that acceptance was correct. While I'm not saying that it's too late to attempt to persuade Guido to reverse himself, it does seem to me to be a lot of fuss over a fairly small function - and no-one said anything like this at the time. When I put up 5 reviews to get Martin to look at this, I honestly believed that it was a simple case of an accepted PEP with a complete implementation (admittedly scattered over a couple of SF patches), and would simply be a matter of committing it. IMHO, the burden is on those who want the "Accepted" status revoking to persuade Guido to pronounce to that effect. Otherwise, based on the standard PEP workflow process, it's time to move on, and ensure that the patches provide a complete implementation, and assuming they do to commit them. (But I don't want to put myself up as a big "champion" of PEP 309 - I like it, and I'd like to get the "accepted and there's a patch, but not yet implemented" status resolved, but that's all. I'm not going to switch to Perl if the patch isn't accepted :-)) Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
