[Python-Dev] Re: Resurrecting PEP-472
Hi, I'm Joseph, the co-author of PEP 472. You can remove the second complication ;) You can even remove my name if it simplifies things, Stefano did all of the work anyway. I'm also following the discussion on python-ideas and I like the way it seem to go with "standard" kwargs. It didn't occured to me that I had to do any kind of contact before, sorry. I read the lists a lot but almost never write, I'll take the chance to thank everyone for your work on python, it's really a wonderfull language to use :) Joseph ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/FAYFLXKQ2XUO4SG4KXRDZVIKYEH3R4AD/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Resurrecting PEP-472
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric V. Smith wrote: > Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the > best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the > original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the > original authors isn't available. At the very least, you'd want to > remove their name from any updated version, and at that point it's > really a new PEP anyway (IMO). > I agree with Eric's logic: it's a new PEP at this point, and since it's a new PEP it will require a sponsor. -Brett > > As to the sponsor, I think there should be a new sponsor in either case: > a brand new PEP or resurrecting a rejected PEP. Basically the sponsor > acts as a hurdle to get things in front of the steering council, and > that hurdle shouldn't be bypassed just by resurrecting an old PEP. > > Eric > > On 8/27/2020 4:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about > > resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments". > > > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/ > > > > One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating > > the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) > > on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies. > > > > The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword > > parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and > > methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks > > such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a > > namedtuple, etc. > > > > Two complications: > > > > - the PEP is rejected, not deferred. > > > > - one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have > >dropped out of contact. > > > > Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he > > prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened? > > > > > > > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/3LMHDE2OXCFOVLGLRLYCTRSKEBNYRFFO/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KL7HDJZMR2WRTY6WZQQUSYG2ZT3T6UZX/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Re: Resurrecting PEP-472
Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the original authors isn't available. At the very least, you'd want to remove their name from any updated version, and at that point it's really a new PEP anyway (IMO). As to the sponsor, I think there should be a new sponsor in either case: a brand new PEP or resurrecting a rejected PEP. Basically the sponsor acts as a hurdle to get things in front of the steering council, and that hurdle shouldn't be bypassed just by resurrecting an old PEP. Eric On 8/27/2020 4:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Hi all, On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments". https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/ One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies. The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a namedtuple, etc. Two complications: - the PEP is rejected, not deferred. - one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have dropped out of contact. Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened? ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/3LMHDE2OXCFOVLGLRLYCTRSKEBNYRFFO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-Dev] Resurrecting PEP-472
Hi all, On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments". https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/ One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies. The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a namedtuple, etc. Two complications: - the PEP is rejected, not deferred. - one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have dropped out of contact. Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened? -- Steve ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IFRZDQ4IYIY7UYJZRLJU7AK35ABRWFAT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
