Intention to accept PEP 567 (Context Variables)
There has been useful and effective discussion on several of the finer points of PEP 567. I think we've arrived at a solid specification, where every part of the design is well motivated. I plan to accept it on Monday, unless someone brings up something significant that we've overlooked before then. Please don't rehash issues that have already been debated -- we're unlikely to reach a different conclusion upon revisiting the same issue (read the Rejected Ideas section first). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Yury, I am hereby *accepting* the latest version of PEP 567[1]. Congrats! --Guido [1] https://github.com/python/peps/commit/a459539920b9b8c8394ef61058e88a076ef8b1... On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
There has been useful and effective discussion on several of the finer points of PEP 567. I think we've arrived at a solid specification, where every part of the design is well motivated. I plan to accept it on Monday, unless someone brings up something significant that we've overlooked before then. Please don't rehash issues that have already been debated -- we're unlikely to reach a different conclusion upon revisiting the same issue (read the Rejected Ideas section first).
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Yay! Thank you, Guido! Yury On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
Yury,
I am hereby *accepting* the latest version of PEP 567[1]. Congrats!
--Guido
[1] https://github.com/python/peps/commit/a459539920b9b8c8394ef61058e88a076ef8b1...
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
There has been useful and effective discussion on several of the finer points of PEP 567. I think we've arrived at a solid specification, where every part of the design is well motivated. I plan to accept it on Monday, unless someone brings up something significant that we've overlooked before then. Please don't rehash issues that have already been debated -- we're unlikely to reach a different conclusion upon revisiting the same issue (read the Rejected Ideas section first).
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/yselivanov.ml%40gmail.com
The PEP 555 looks a competitor PEP of the PEP 567. Since the Yury's PEP 567 was approved, I understand that Koos's PEP 555 should be rejected, no? Victor 2018-01-23 0:52 GMT+01:00 Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>:
Yury,
I am hereby *accepting* the latest version of PEP 567[1]. Congrats!
--Guido
[1] https://github.com/python/peps/commit/a459539920b9b8c8394ef61058e88a076ef8b1...
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 9:30 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
There has been useful and effective discussion on several of the finer points of PEP 567. I think we've arrived at a solid specification, where every part of the design is well motivated. I plan to accept it on Monday, unless someone brings up something significant that we've overlooked before then. Please don't rehash issues that have already been debated -- we're unlikely to reach a different conclusion upon revisiting the same issue (read the Rejected Ideas section first).
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.co...
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
The PEP 555 looks a competitor PEP of the PEP 567. Since the Yury's PEP 567 was approved, I understand that Koos's PEP 555 should be rejected, no?
If Guido prefers to reject it, I assume he'll say so. Anyway, it's still waiting for me to add references to earlier discussions and perhaps summaries of some discussions. Personally, I need to find some time to properly catch up with the latest discussion to figure out why PEP 567 is better than PEP 555 (or similar with .set(..), or PEP 550), despite problems of reasoning about the scopes of variables and unset tokens. In any case, congrats, Yury! This hasn't been an easy one for any of us, and it seems like the implementation required quite a beastly patch too in the end. —Koos
On 01/23/2018 09:56 AM, Koos Zevenhoven wrote:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:23 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com <mailto:victor.stinner@gmail.com>>wrote:
The PEP 555 looks a competitor PEP of the PEP 567. Since the Yury's PEP 567 was approved, I understand that Koos's PEP 555 should be rejected, no?
If Guido prefers to reject it, I assume he'll say so.
Guido has already made his position clear: On 01/10/2018 08:21 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
The current status of PEP 555 is "Withdrawn". I have no interest in considering it any more, so if you'd rather see a decision from me I'll be happy to change it to "Rejected".
Yes, there is no future for PEP 555. //arry/
participants (6)
-
Ethan Furman -
Guido van Rossum -
Koos Zevenhoven -
Larry Hastings -
Victor Stinner -
Yury Selivanov