Hi, 2014-03-12 18:09 GMT+01:00 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: > I want to reject this PEP. (...) > this was a well-written and well-researched PEP, and I think you've done a > great job moderating the discussion, collecting objections, reviewing > alternatives, and everything else that is required to turn a heated debate > into a PEP. Well done Chris (and everyone who helped), and good luck with > your next PEP!
I spend many weeks to work (write the PEP *and* implement them) on the following PEPs and Guido rejected them: - PEP 416: Add a frozendict builtin type - PEP 410: Use decimal.Decimal type for timestamps It's hard to accept that a wonderful idea at a first look is not a good idea. Some months later, I now agree and see issues of my PEPs. The PEP process ensures that the Python "language" (+ stdlib) keeps consistent and well designed. Even if a PEP is rejected, it becomes the best reference if someone requests the same or a similar feature some months or years later. Rejected PEPs explain almost how the Python language was designed. For thanks Chris, and I hope that it's not too hard for you to accept the fact that your "inline try/except" idea is maybe not as good as you expected :-) Victor _______________________________________________ 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
