On 5/6/19 4:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Thanks for your time. I suggest you (or somebody else) to officially reject PEP 580.
I'll do that shortly. I hope that you are not taking this personally. PEP 580 is a good design. PEP 590 even says that it's built on your ideas.
I start working on reformulating PEP 590, adding some elements from PEP 580. At the same time, I work on the implementation of PEP 590. I want to implement Mark's idea of having a separate wrapper for each old-style calling convention.
In the mean time, we can continue the discussion about the details, for example whether to store the flags inside the instance (I don't have an answer for that right now, I'll need to think about it).
I'm abandoning per-instance flag proposal. It's an unnecessary complication; per-type flags are fine.
Petr, did you discuss with the Steering Council? It would be good to have some kind of pre-approval that PEP 590 and its implementation will be accepted. I want to work on PEP 590, but I'm not the right person to "defend" it (I know that it's worse in some ways than PEP 580).
As BDFL-delegate, I'm "pre-approving" PEP 590. I mentioned some details of PEP 590 that still need attention. If there are any more, now's the time to bring them up.
And yes, I know that in some ways it's worse than PEP 580. That's what makes it a hard decision.