On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:12:53 +1100 Chris Angelico firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
But Paul's recent track record of proposals isn't like that. They're not part of the language.
Everything was not part of the language, until it became. And "a language" is multi-level structure in the first place. For example, module "audioop" is not part of *the language*, it's part of *the language stdlib*. And more and more voices are heard to treat such modules not as the part of *the language stdlib*, but a part of *particular implementation's bundled library*, which might even got there by accident in the first place, and treat them correspondingly: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0594/
Again, do you see a pattern here? Some things which you think as "part of the language" are actually not. Can you imagine the opposite possibility - some things are much more related to "the language" (outer layers of it) than proverbial audioop?
If I start a thread recommending that Python's int type be redefined as a 19-bit signed integer with twos complement semantics, would that be received as a sane proposal, or would people say "no, Python's integer won't change semantics, go make your own fork"?
That's why I never started such a thread ;-). But I imagine us having a discussion one of these years, about "what is the syntactic way to switch default implementation of the 'int' type for the whole runtime?"