On 28 November 2017 at 20:38, Barry Warsaw
On Nov 28, 2017, at 15:31, Raymond Hettinger
wrote: Put me down for a strong -1. The proposal would occasionally save a few keystokes but comes at the expense of giving Python a more Perlish look and a more arcane feel.
I am also -1.
-1 from me, too.
One of the things I like about Python is that I can walk non-programmers through the code and explain what it does. The examples in PEP 505 look like a step in the wrong direction. They don't "look like Python" and make me feel like I have to decrypt the code to figure-out what it does.
I had occasional to speak with someone very involved in Rust development. They have a process roughly similar to our PEPs. One of the things he told me, which I found very interesting and have been mulling over for PEPs is, they require a section in their specification discussion how any new feature will be taught, both to new Rust programmers and experienced ones. I love the emphasis on teachability. Sometimes I really miss that when considering some of the PEPs and the features they introduce (look how hard it is to teach asynchronous programming).
That's a really nice idea. I'd like to see Python adopt something similar (even just as a guideline on how to write a PEP). Paul