On 5/14/05, Brett C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick's was obviously directly against looping, but, with no offense to Nick, > how many other people were against it looping? It never felt like it was a > screaming mass with pitchforks but more of a "I don't love it, but I can deal" > crowd.
Agreed. That's certainly how I felt originally. There were a *lot* of nice features with PEP 340. The initial discussion had a lot of people enthusiastic about all the neat things they could do with it. That's disappeared now, in a long series of attempts to "fix" the looping issue. No-one is looking at PEP 343, or Nick's PEP 3XX, and saying "hey, that's neat - I can do XXX with that!". This makes me feel that we've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. (Yes, I know PEP 342 is integral to many of the neat features, but I get the impression that PEP 342 is being lost - later iterations of the other two PEPs are going out of their way to avoid assuming PEP 324 is implemented...) Looping is definitely a wart. Looping may even be a real problem in some cases. There may be cases where an explicit try...finally remains better, simply to avoid an unwanted looping behaviour. But I'll live with that to get back the enthusiasm for a new feature that started all of this. Much better than the current "yes, I guess that's good enough" tone to the discussion. Paul. PS Guido - next time you get a neat idea like PEP 340, just code it and check it in. Then we can just badger you to fix the code, rather than using up all your time on discussion before there's an implementation :-) _______________________________________________ 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
