![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3dc5fffe0e94dfa07067a45400213034.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 15/08/2020 11:06 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 11:42 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info <mailto:steve@pearwood.info>> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:36:25AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Do you have anything new to add to the discussion, or is this 2000 > lines of rehash?
Having a summary of objections/critiques in one place is far better than expecting people to wade through multiple huge threads.
But Mark's repo doesn't replace any of the threads -- it just repeats Mark's own arguments, which are exclusively focused on the examples in the PEP (it's as if Mark read nothing *but* the examples).
I've read all the PEP. *All* of it. Several times. I would encourage others to read it all carefully as well. Anyone who just reads the abstract and introduction might well think that PEP 622 is a wonderful thing without any flaws. Reading the whole PEP and thinking about its application reveals its flaws. By choosing examples of your choosing, I am making an effort to be as fair as possible. Probably more than fair, in this case. Throughout the critique, I have attempted to be objective where possible and fair where objectivity is impossible. Please point out anywhere I have failed, I'd like the critique to be as fair as possible. For examples where PEP 622 works poorly see the "Irregularities and surprising behavior" section. I would also bring you attention to my rigorous analysis of the possible application to PEP 622 the entirety of CPython. If I have made any mistakes there, I'd be happy to correct them. Cheers, Mark.