Propose to reject PEP 313 -- Adding Roman Numeral Literals to Python
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was introduced in early April 2003). Most agree that there should be only-one-way-to-do-it; however, the proponents are evenly split into two camps, with the modernists preferring IX for nine and the classicists preferring VIIII which was the most likely spelling in ancient Rome. The classicists not only rely on set-in-stone tradition, they point to pragmatic issues such as avoidance of subtraction, ease of coding, easier mental parsing (much less error prone), and ease of teaching to beginners. They assert that the modernists have introduced unnecessary algorithmic complexity just to save two keystrokes. The modernists point to compatible Java implementations and current grade school textbooks. They believe that users from other languages will expect the IX form. Note however, not all the modernists agree on whether MXM would be a well-formed spelling of 1990; most, but not all prefer MCMXC despite its likelihood of being mis-parsed on a first reading. There is also a small but vocal user group demanding that lowercase forms be allowed. Their use cases fall into four categories: (i) academia, (ii) the legal profession, (iii) research paper writing, and (iv) powerpoint slideshows. Reportedly, this is also a common convention among Perl programmers. Links: http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/waymac/History%20A/A%20Term%201/1.%20Rome/R oman_Numerals.htm http://www.sizes.com/numbers/roman_numerals.htm Raymond
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 02:39, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have feature
Really? Where's the supporting poll data? In over 10 years of Python programming, I've never once needed a Roman number literal. Worse, I don't buy the compatibility argument. I'm as anal as anyone about PEP 8 style, but that's still no reason to break code like
MIX = True
I wouldn't be opposed to a library that provided a function to convert to and from Romans but I don't think Python needs Roman numeral literal support. +1 for rejecting. -Barry
[Raymond Hettinger]
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have feature
[Barry Warsaw]
Really? Where's the supporting poll data?
We've run IV polls since this PEP was introduced, and the geometric mean of those shows LXVIII% of Python users strongly in favor (+I), and an additional XXI% not opposed (+roman(0), really -- I'm not sure how to spell zero in Roman numerals, but trust that the new `roman()` builtin will handle it correctly).
In over 10 years of Python programming, I've never once needed a Roman number literal.
Who cares what someone still stuck on Python Challenge #XVII thinks? Input from real Python programmers would be appreciated, though. For example, I'm eager to switch ZODB's object ids to Roman numerals. For example, as Raymond acknowledged, that would make it much easier to produce ZODB PowerPoint slides.
Worse, I don't buy the compatibility argument. I'm as anal as anyone about PEP 8 style, but that's still no reason to break code like
MIX = True
And you care nothing for the possibility that an ancient Roman explorer found frozen in the Arctic may be revived, and find such code incomprehensibly obscure? Python should be for everyone, not just the living. BTW, you might want to reread Raymond's post -- he was having an indecently good time at, well, someone's expense <wink>.
+M to reject. On 6/16/05, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@verizon.net> wrote:
While the majority of Python users deem this to be a nice-to-have feature, the community has been unable to reach a consensus on the proper syntax after more than two years of intensive debate (the PEP was introduced in early April 2003).
Most agree that there should be only-one-way-to-do-it; however, the proponents are evenly split into two camps, with the modernists preferring IX for nine and the classicists preferring VIIII which was the most likely spelling in ancient Rome.
The classicists not only rely on set-in-stone tradition, they point to pragmatic issues such as avoidance of subtraction, ease of coding, easier mental parsing (much less error prone), and ease of teaching to beginners. They assert that the modernists have introduced unnecessary algorithmic complexity just to save two keystrokes.
The modernists point to compatible Java implementations and current grade school textbooks. They believe that users from other languages will expect the IX form. Note however, not all the modernists agree on whether MXM would be a well-formed spelling of 1990; most, but not all prefer MCMXC despite its likelihood of being mis-parsed on a first reading.
There is also a small but vocal user group demanding that lowercase forms be allowed. Their use cases fall into four categories: (i) academia, (ii) the legal profession, (iii) research paper writing, and (iv) powerpoint slideshows. Reportedly, this is also a common convention among Perl programmers.
Links:
http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/waymac/History%20A/A%20Term%201/1.%20Rome/R oman_Numerals.htm http://www.sizes.com/numbers/roman_numerals.htm
Raymond
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
*cough* Would it also be possible for the PEP-maintainers not to accept PEPs that are obvious jokes unless thedate is April I? *uncough* -- mvh Björn
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Would it also be possible for the PEP-maintainers not to accept PEPs that are obvious jokes unless thedate is April I?
I believe this is the current policy. Why do you think the PEP editor works differently? Regards, Martin
participants (6)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Barry Warsaw -
BJörn Lindqvist -
Guido van Rossum -
Raymond Hettinger -
Tim Peters