On 28 November 2017 at 18:38, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2017, at 15:31, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Put me down for a strong -1. The proposal would occasionally save a few >> keystokes but comes at the expense of giving Python a more Perlish look and >> a more arcane feel. > > I am also -1. > >> One of the things I like about Python is that I can walk non-programmers >> through the code and explain what it does. The examples in PEP 505 look >> like a step in the wrong direction. They don't "look like Python" and make >> me feel like I have to decrypt the code to figure-out what it does. > > I had occasional to speak with someone very involved in Rust development. > They have a process roughly similar to our PEPs. One of the things he told > me, which I found very interesting and have been mulling over for PEPs is, > they require a section in their specification discussion how any new feature > will be taught, both to new Rust programmers and experienced ones. I love > the emphasis on teachability. Sometimes I really miss that when considering > some of the PEPs and the features they introduce (look how hard it is to > teach asynchronous programming).
Oh well, I would be +1 on patching PEP 1 for that. > > Cheers, > -Barry > _______________________________________________ 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
