On 21 February 2014 22:42, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 21 February 2014 13:15, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> PEP: 463 >>> Title: Exception-catching expressions >> Great work on this Chris - this is one of the best researched and >> justified Python syntax proposals I've seen :) > > It is? Wow... I'm not sure what that says about other syntax > proposals. This is one week's python-ideas discussion plus one little > script doing analysis on the standard library. Hardly PhD level > research :)
Right, it just takes someone willing to put in the time to actually put a concrete proposal together, read all the discussions, attempt to summarise them into a coherent form and go looking for specific examples to help make their case. I think a large part of my pleased reaction is the fact that several of the python-ideas regulars (including me) have a habit of responding to new syntax proposals with a list of things to do to make a good PEP (especially Raymond's "search the stdlib for code that would be improved" criterion), and it's quite a novelty to have someone take that advice and put together a compelling argument - the more typical reaction is for the poster to decide that a PEP sounds like too much work and drop the idea (or else to realise that they can't actually provide the compelling use cases requested). As you have discovered, creating a PEP really isn't that arduous, so long as you have enough spare time to keep up with the discussions, and there actually are compelling examples of possible improvements readily available :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
