On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM, geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Jared Grubb <jared.grubb@gmail.com> wrote:
It would be a shame to discourage new ideas just because we are not willing to implement them "now".
I hope that any moratorium would not cut discussions of new ideas short, would not change the tone of python-ideas, and would not discourage writing PEP's for new language features (with the understanding that it will be a while before they actually get implemented).
Actually one of my goals with the moratorium is to discourage discussion of certain ideas that keep coming up forever and draining the energy of the list.
Personally, I think mandating that you bring working code to the table when proposing a language change would take the number of requests for, say, removing the GIL to pretty much nil.
Actually removing the GIL is not subject to the moratorium, and it seems that some people *are* working on code.
Also, I certainly don't hope that when the moratorium is lifted there are 20 language PEPs waiting for approval. Python's evolution needs to slow down as the user community grows.
Again, I doubt that very many of the people proposing some of these changes have either the technical skills to pull them off or the patience to maintain them for a year and a half while waiting for the moratorium to lift. My guess is that you'll have about 300 half-baked or just-started projects and only one or two good ones ready for PEP consideration. Over the period of time you're talking about, that doesn't seem -IMO- to be too much, too fast. Your mileage may certainly vary.
I hope to discourage those 300 people to the point where there won't be any half-baked or unbaked projects. Let them contribute to Perl 6. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)