PEP 687 – Isolating modules in the standard library
Hello, Please provide any feedback you might have on PEP 687 – Isolating modules in the standard library: https://peps.python.org/pep-0687/ From recent discussions around “what should have a PEP”, it’s clear that this should have been a PEP long ago. Better late than never, I guess! We submit this PEP to explain the changes, seek consensus on whether they are good, propose the remaining changes, and set best practices for new modules. There's a discussion thread on Discourse: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-687-isolating-modules-in-the-standard-libra...
In the sentence starting with Types whose methods need access to their module instance will be converted to heap types[...] please emphasize (bold!) "whose methods need access to their module instance". Also emphasize this paragraph: "Static types that do not need module state access, and have no other reason to be converted, should stay static." I hadn't noticed the qualification in the first sentence and had assumed all types were to be converted, until I came across the second at the very end of the section (where it is easily overlooked by lazy readers :-). On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 6:33 AM Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, Please provide any feedback you might have on PEP 687 – Isolating modules in the standard library: https://peps.python.org/pep-0687/
From recent discussions around “what should have a PEP”, it’s clear that this should have been a PEP long ago. Better late than never, I guess!
We submit this PEP to explain the changes, seek consensus on whether they are good, propose the remaining changes, and set best practices for new modules.
There's a discussion thread on Discourse:
https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-687-isolating-modules-in-the-standard-libra...
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/B3HYQIE4... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, 3:59 am Guido van Rossum, <guido@python.org> wrote:
In the sentence starting with
Types whose methods need access to their module instance will be converted to heap types[...]
please emphasize (bold!) "whose methods need access to their module instance".
Also emphasize this paragraph:
"Static types that do not need module state access, and have no other reason to be converted, should stay static."
I hadn't noticed the qualification in the first sentence and had assumed all types were to be converted, until I came across the second at the very end of the section (where it is easily overlooked by lazy readers :-).
Making that final paragraph the first paragraph in the section should help on both points (reminds me of flipping an if/else in code so the one-liner branch is the first one). Definite +1 from me on the overall PEP. Cheers, Nick.
On 12 Apr 2022, at 01:23, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, 3:59 am Guido van Rossum, <guido@python.org> wrote: In the sentence starting with
Making that final paragraph the first paragraph in the section should help on both points (reminds me of flipping an if/else in code so the one-liner branch is the first one).
Good suggestion; this is a great improvement. (I prefer this to using bold type.)
Definite +1 from me on the overall PEP.
Thanks :) E
participants (4)
-
Erlend Egeberg Aasland -
Guido van Rossum -
Nick Coghlan -
Petr Viktorin