Hi Steven, On 06.09.2016 18:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:29:18PM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
[I think Arek is quoting me here]
One moderately stong piece of evidence would be if this function is widely available in third-party libraries and other languages. Wrong. Python is NOT known for doing everything by how it was done before. That's not what I said.
I'm telling you what you need to do to have the best chance of your proposal being accepted. It isn't enough to just write a patch.
Python is not *your* language where you get to decide what goes in and out, it is Guido's language, and he trusts the community to come to a consensus for these things. Part of that process is to trust respected core developers like Raymond Hettinger and Tim Peters to make decisions.
I have been following the Python-Ideas mailing list for, oh, probably ten years. Maybe fifteen. I've seen hundreds, maybe thousands of suggestions and ideas rejected, and dozens accepted, including some of my own.
If your only argument is to continue to insist that Python should have a shuffled() function and you'll write a patch, it will go no where. First you have to convince people that the patch is needed.
He already convinced some people. Just not some venerable Python devs, which doesn't necessarily mean something at all. Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it." Arek: "But I need it." So, who's right now? I would suggest not being so protective. It's community project after all. Maybe, the patch will help him understand that it's not so easy, or other people will see the benefit after reading it. If the patch isn't worth including, he learned something in the process of creating it.
My father used statically typed variables and his father used statically typed variables so I will use... And my grandfather and my father used dynamically typed variables. Lisp had dynamically typed variables back in the 1950s, and Smalltalk had them in the 1980s. So what?
Best, Sven