PEP 687 – Isolating modules in the standard library
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/870d613430249e453343efc9667ef636.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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...
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/047f2332cde3730f1ed661eebb0c5686.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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:
-- --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...>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f3ba3ecffd20251d73749afbfa636786.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, 3:59 am Guido van Rossum, <guido@python.org> wrote:
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.
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/047f2332cde3730f1ed661eebb0c5686.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
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:
-- --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...>
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f3ba3ecffd20251d73749afbfa636786.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022, 3:59 am Guido van Rossum, <guido@python.org> wrote:
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.
participants (4)
-
Erlend Egeberg Aasland
-
Guido van Rossum
-
Nick Coghlan
-
Petr Viktorin