Resurrecting PEP-472
Hi all, On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments". https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/ One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies. The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a namedtuple, etc. Two complications: - the PEP is rejected, not deferred. - one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have dropped out of contact. Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened? -- Steve
Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the original authors isn't available. At the very least, you'd want to remove their name from any updated version, and at that point it's really a new PEP anyway (IMO). As to the sponsor, I think there should be a new sponsor in either case: a brand new PEP or resurrecting a rejected PEP. Basically the sponsor acts as a hurdle to get things in front of the steering council, and that hurdle shouldn't be bypassed just by resurrecting an old PEP. Eric On 8/27/2020 4:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Hi all,
On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments".
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/
One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies.
The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a namedtuple, etc.
Two complications:
- the PEP is rejected, not deferred.
- one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have dropped out of contact.
Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
Leaving out the complication of needing a new sponsor, I would think the best course of action would be to create a new PEP. I think keeping the original rejected PEP is a net positive, and especially so if one of the original authors isn't available. At the very least, you'd want to remove their name from any updated version, and at that point it's really a new PEP anyway (IMO).
I agree with Eric's logic: it's a new PEP at this point, and since it's a new PEP it will require a sponsor. -Brett
As to the sponsor, I think there should be a new sponsor in either case: a brand new PEP or resurrecting a rejected PEP. Basically the sponsor acts as a hurdle to get things in front of the steering council, and that hurdle shouldn't be bypassed just by resurrecting an old PEP.
Eric
On 8/27/2020 4:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Hi all,
On the Python-Ideas mailing list, there has been a long debate about resurrecting PEP 472, "Support for indexing with keyword arguments".
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/
One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies.
The new strategy is to pass keyword arguments directly to keyword parameters in the `__getitem__` etc methods, as other functions and methods do. The previous, rejected, strategies involved various hacks such as overloading the single index parameter with a dict or a namedtuple, etc.
Two complications:
- the PEP is rejected, not deferred.
- one of the previous co-authors, Joseph Martinot-Lagarde, seems to have dropped out of contact.
Does Stefano need to get a sponsor and create a new PEP, or can he prepare a PR and ask for it to be re-opened?
_______________________________________________ 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/3LMHDE2O... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Hi, I'm Joseph, the co-author of PEP 472. You can remove the second complication ;) You can even remove my name if it simplifies things, Stefano did all of the work anyway. I'm also following the discussion on python-ideas and I like the way it seem to go with "standard" kwargs. It didn't occured to me that I had to do any kind of contact before, sorry. I read the lists a lot but almost never write, I'll take the chance to thank everyone for your work on python, it's really a wonderfull language to use :) Joseph
Hi, IMO a new PEP would avoid confusion: * The new PEP should list differences with the previously rejected PEP * The old PEP remains available unchanged to help to understand why it has been rejected It's common to have multiple PEP for the same feature. Once a PEP is accepted, other PEP are rejected or marked as "superseded" (by the accepted PEP).
One of the existing authors, Stefano Borini, is interested in updating the PEP with a new strategy that has some support (but not a consensus) on Python-Ideas, and removing from contention the previous strategies.
Aha, interesting! Victor
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:20:08 +0200 Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org> wrote:
Hi,
IMO a new PEP would avoid confusion:
* The new PEP should list differences with the previously rejected PEP * The old PEP remains available unchanged to help to understand why it has been rejected
It's common to have multiple PEP for the same feature. Once a PEP is accepted, other PEP are rejected or marked as "superseded" (by the accepted PEP).
Agreed with Victor. Please create a new PEP. Regards Antoine.
Okay, thanks everyone who answered. In hindsight you are all correct, writing a new PEP is the best solution and I was being over-optimistic (and a little lazy) to think otherwise. I think that, technically, I still have core dev permissions, even though I haven't used them for quite some time. If nobody objects, I would like to use them to sponsor the new PEP. Does it make a difference if I am a co-author of the new PEP, or a significant contributor? Dipping-my-toes-back-into-CPython-dev-ly y'rs, -- Steve
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
Okay, thanks everyone who answered.
In hindsight you are all correct, writing a new PEP is the best solution and I was being over-optimistic (and a little lazy) to think otherwise.
I think that, technically, I still have core dev permissions, even though I haven't used them for quite some time. If nobody objects, I would like to use them to sponsor the new PEP.
Does it make a difference if I am a co-author of the new PEP, or a significant contributor?
Dipping-my-toes-back-into-CPython-dev-ly y'rs,
For sponsorship it makes no difference. A PEP needs to have either a sponsor or a co-author who is a core dev. If you're *just* a sponsor you could still be appointed PEP delegate by the SC. But not if you're an author that can't happen. (Before we had an SC I occasionally approved my own PEPs. PEP 572 was the last such.) -- --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-change-the-world/>
First draft is available as a draft PR on https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1579 This draft contains just the motivation, not the implementation decisions. I'll add that in the upcoming nights, but it's now open for comments. On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 22:50, Stefano Borini <stefano.borini@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 at 19:33, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
Agreed with Victor. Please create a new PEP.
on it.
-- Kind regards,
Stefano Borini
-- Kind regards, Stefano Borini
participants (8)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
Brett Cannon -
Eric V. Smith -
Guido van Rossum -
Joseph Martinot-Lagarde -
Stefano Borini -
Steven D'Aprano -
Victor Stinner