Quoth Raymond Hettinger: [...]
But am -1000 on eliminating implicit instantiation before Py3.0.
The proposal is, in fact, to eliminate it in 3.0, and not before. Is the PEP not clear on this point? Btw, because I expect the implicit instantiation bit to be at least somewhat controversial, I'd intended to have most of the discussion on python-list. (In fact, I just posted the PEP there, before, sadly, noticing this thread.) Should such discussion be in py-dev instead? [...]
I think it would only be fair to add:
"If this proposal is adopted, nearly every piece of non-trivial python code that has ever been written would need to be revised or would fail to run. Likewise, most tutorial and book examples would also fail."
Yes, it's a massively backwards-incompatible change. But I get the feeling I'm missing the point you're making by emphasizing the fact. Is the point that you think readers of the PEP won't understand the scope of the backwards-incompatibility, and so the point deserves more emphasis? I'd thought it was obvious. Is the point that you think it's too backwards-incompatible to be implemented as early as 3.0? If so, I'd like to hear it explicitly, and also your thoughts on what kind of schedule, if any, seems more appropriate. -- Steven Taschuk staschuk@telusplanet.net "I'm always serious, never more so than when I'm being flippant." -- _Look to Windward_, Iain M. Banks