[Python-ideas] Possible PEP 380 tweak

[Jacob Holm]

On 2010-10-30 01:54, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Jacob Holm <jh at improva.dk> wrote:
>> Which is exactly why I'm suggesting dropping "return value" from PEP 380
>> and then doing it *right* in PEP 3152, which has a much better rationale
>> for the "return value" feature anyway.
> 
> Oh, but I still don't like that PEP, and it has a much higher
> probability of failing completely. PEP 380 OTOH has my approval except
> for minor quibbles like g.close().
> 

I agree that PEP 3152 is far from perfect at this point, but I like the
basics.   The reason I am so concerned with the "return value" semantics
is that I see some problems we are having in PEP 3152 as indicating a
likely flaw/misfeature in PEP 380.  I would be much happier with both
PEPs if they didn't conflict in this way.

So much so, that I would rather miss a few features in PEP 380 in the
*hope* of getting them right later with another PEP.  To quote the Zen:

  "never is often better than *right* now"

A PEP just for the "return value" shouldn't be too hard to add later if
PEP 3152 doesn't work out, and at that point we should have a better
idea about the best way of doing it.


- Jacob