On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 01:09:32PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:04 PM Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The rush to push this to a PEP is unseemly. This has only been two days and I am sure that there will be many people who could be interested but haven't had a chance to look at the thread yet due to other committments.
All the more reason to have a coherent document. There've been a number of different syntaxes proposed, and a number of objections, some to the specific syntaxes and some to the proposal as a whole, and it's unclear at times which is which. If someone's going to catch up on the thread after a delay, wouldn't it be far better to simply read a PEP than to try to delve through the entire thread and figure out which parts to reply to?
Depends on how much the care about the feature, how much time they are willing to spend, and how well the PEP summaries the entire thread.
So far the discussion has been neither excessively huge nor excessively low signal-to-noise, so I'm not sure why the rush to move to a formal PEP.
In the old days, anyone willing to make a PEP could just do so, without permission, so it's not like I'm saying that we shouldn't have a PEP. But it just seems premature to go from half-formed ideas on the list to a concrete proposal.