Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas writes: > If people have alternative proposals, it's up to them to propose > them.
I don't understand why you focus on proposals that don't exist yet. Both alternatives that I can imagine have been proposed. One alternative proposal is Steven d'Aprano's "put the thunk in an object, execute it in the same place, and the rest is PEP 671" idea. The other is "keep the status quo." Both are viable. "Keep the status quo" is the usual outcome for the first proposal to address an issue via new syntax. All the rest is rationale for supporting one proposal or another. > It's not Chris A's job to try to clarify what *he thinks they mean* I don't think it's an obligation on Chris, I think it's to his advantage. See Paul Moore's post on why Chris should at least include a list of reservations in PEP 671, and then consider whether it would help Chris's case if he understands them well enough to dispose of them efficiently if the SC asks. You seem to think that if there's no alternative that addresses the issue we all see, the PEP should be adopted by default. That simply isn't the case in Python -- do nothing is the default. The Loyal Opposition is not trying to crush the PEP (we can't, anyway), we are trying to explain why we don't like it. And it will make the PEP more likely to succeed if Chris can address any reservations the SC asks about succinctly and effectively. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/II7ZSL5GDVO5HABNAA4FZIZNJMD6JYPN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
