On 01/23/2015 12:06 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:40:14PM -0800, Chris Barker wrote:
After much discussion on this list, I have written up a PEP, and it is ready for review (see below)
I do not agree that it is ready for review.
Why? If it has problems, how will he find out about them unless people read it and offer critiques? Or do you not refer to that process as reviewing?
I think you have rushed to decide that this needs a PEP,
He asked if a PEP was needed, and one is. Worst-case scenario we have something to point the next floating-point closeness requester to.
rushed the preparation of the PEP,
With over 100 messages to pull from, how was the preparation rushed? He should have taken a month to write it?
and now you have rushed the request for review.
Um, what? He should have just sat on it for a couple weeks before asking people to look it over? Asking for a review is not the same as asking for a pronouncement; it's not even on python-dev yet.
What's the hurry?
For one, Python 3.5 alpha one is just around the corner, and while there's still time after that the more eyeballs the better; for another, why wait? He has the information he needed, he collected it, made some decisions, and brought it back to the community. Ten days from the first floating point closeness message (14 if you count the float range class thread). A PEP also helps focus the conversation.
As it stands with the decisions you have made, I cannot support this PEP even though I support the basic idea.
Perhaps you feel rushed because you don't like it? -- ~Ethan~