On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stefan Krah <stefan@bytereef.org> wrote:
Eli Bendersky <eliben@gmail.com> wrote:
For anyone who isn't following the issue: A PEP proposing a different DSL will be forthcoming either this or next weekend.
If the two proposals share at least the motivation, would it not be more constructive to just have them listed as alternatives in a single PEP? This could serve as a useful single source of information for the new proposed features.
I find PEPs that propose multiple alternatives hard to read. My PEP won't be short: It will contain a token specifications, a yacc grammar and an attempt to specify the semantics of the DSL.
More importantly, the competing PEPs have different champions, so you and Larry need to be free to make the best case you can. Cheers, Nick. P.S. I was thinking the last time we had truly competing PEPs was way back when the with statement was designed, but it turns out the competing namespace package designs were also separate PEPs. PEP 315 was more an after the fact here's-a-better-way-to-implement-this redesign of PEP 309, and PEP 3150 vs 403 is just me having an ongoing discussion with myself (and occasionally others) over a feature I doubt would ever make it past Guido even if I do eventually decide to propose one of them. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia