On Jul 12, 2018, at 09:23, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes, the PEP has improved significantly since that time. My guess is the >> same poll taken now could give an opposite result. >> > > I still -0 on PEP 572. But strong -1 on restart discussion about changing it. > We should polish and implement it for now, not change.
I think that’s likely true. While extremely painful for so many of us, I think the end result is a much better PEP, and a much better feature. I was -1 as well, but I’d say I’m a firm +0 now[*]. I like how many of the problematic syntactic and semantic issues have been narrowed and prohibited, and I can see myself using this sparingly. It’s not the first time I’ve found myself in this position with a new Python feature, and it’s one of the reasons I deeply trust Guido’s intuition and sensibilities. Cheers, -Barry [*] Not that it matters; the PEP is accepted - time to move on! The world won’t end. :)
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com