Hi Nathaniel, Philosophy of Science 101: nobody knows what TheBestSolution is and nobody ever will. That said, when we decided to submit PEP 654, that was a point in time when we came to believe that we found the right solution. We made significant changes later following feedback we agreed with, but in the case of "flat EG" I see several disadvantages and don't quite understand what the win is. I appreciate the invitation, but I don't want to work on that idea (nor am I the right person to push it forward). However, I think it's fantastic if you and others do pursue alternative options (independently of my biases). You will either find something better or validate PEP 654, and in either case the world wins. Feel free to adapt our implementation if that helps. You have a year before we have our next chance to commit to PEP 654. Irit On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:18 AM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 9:14 AM Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathaniel, at this point it's clear that this thread somehow does not help us understand what you want. Could you please just write your own PEP clearly outlining your proposal, its upsides and downsides? Without a PEP from you this thread is just a distraction.
If that's the best way to move forward, then ok. My main thing is just that I don't want to make this some antagonistic me-vs-you thing. After all, we all want the best design to be chosen, and none of us know what that is yet, so there's no need for conflict :-).
Irit, Yury, would you be interested in co-authoring a PEP for the "flat EG" approach? Basically trying to set down the best possible version of each approach, so that we can put them next to each other?
-n
-- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org