On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 05:12:06PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on > > comp.lang.python too.
> Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP > specifically to be rejected. Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a 'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people argue? A single PEP, with oneliners to describe ideas, one or two lines to explain 'why not', references to the python-list or python-dev discussions, if any, and a sign in big friendly letters saying "if you really must discuss these subjects, do it on python-list, not python-dev". Some of the stuff that could be in there: - implicit rather than explicit self: invalidates too many tricks - omitting () on functioncalls: like implicit self - changing all statements into expressions (e.g. logix): python isn't (going to be) a functional language - methods for tuples: tuples are records, not collections; use lists instead - sigils to indicate 'self.' (e.g. @foo): loses readability, wins too little - '?' and other non-alphanumerical characters in identifiers: like sigils - strict private/public accessing: 'fake' protection; use closures instead etc. No need to come up with them all, I'm sure all the prize ideas will pop back up eventually ;) -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! _______________________________________________ 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
