On 12/01/17 19:51, Todd wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de <mailto:srku...@mail.de>> wrote: First of all, I am anti-censor and pro-change.
There is no "censorship" or "banning thoughts" going on here. Even with this PEP, people are free to think about and talk about how Python could work differently all they want. What this PEP does is tell them that certain decisions have been made about how the Python language is going to work, so they should be aware that such talk isn't going to actually result in any changes to the language.
By saying that "these are things that will not change", then you _are_ sort of banning talk about them (if, as you assert, "such talk isn't going to actually result in any changes to the language" then you are saying don't waste your breath, we won't even consider your arguments).
I think I get Sven's point. A long time ago, someone probably said "Python will never have any sort of type declarations.". But now there is type hinting. It's not the same thing, I know, but such a declaration in a PEP might have prevented people from even spending time considering hinting.
Instead, if the PEP collected - for each 'frequently' suggested change - a summary of the reasons WHY each aspect is designed the way it is (with links to archived discussions or whatever) then that IMO that would be a good resource to cite in a canned response to such suggestions.
It's not that "these things will never change", it's more of a "you need to provide a solid argument why your suggestion is different to, and better than, the cited suggestions that have already been rejected".
Probably a lot of work to gather all the references though. But it could start out with one or two and grow from there. Add to it as and when people bring up the same old stuff next time.
E. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
