On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
But calling it "atrocious" and so bad that it needs to be fixed "immediately" as if it's a blight upon the stdlib is unnecessarily insulting to those that have worked on the module. To convey the feeling that you think an OO wrapper would be helpful as the current design doesn't work for you, you could just phrase it as I just did to get the same point across without insulting anyone. Basically if you wouldn't like your own work called "atrocious" by someone you respect, then it's probably best to not use that phrasing when talking about a stranger's code either.
Sorry for the curt tone, I did lose some sight on the code being designed by people rather than a faceless organization. My intention wasn't to disparage the original authors but sprung more out of my frustration and perception from that thread and those before that the status quo would not change and that if a contribution was proffered, would simply be dismissed or ignored. To motivate any change, there must be some argument levied against the status quo, but hopefully I can articulate it better.
That little corner is something I'm interested in, and not having contributed to CPython before, I'm unsure how it "really works". The steps at https://devguide.python.org/stdlibchanges/ suggest trying to elicit community feedback from the lists as a step, so negative feedback tends to kill the enthusiasm to actually make the PR. In the absence of code, concrete arguments are almost impossible as we're discussing the shape of clouds.