At 01:25 PM 1/8/2006 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote: >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 ;)
+1, along with a modification to the PEP procedures to require that people check the rejected ideas PEP before submitting a new proposal. The "rejected ideas" PEP should presumably be a low-numbered process PEP. _______________________________________________ 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
