Jan. 21, 2022
8:58 a.m.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 19:53, Cameron Simpson <cs@cskk.id.au> wrote:
On 20Jan2022 19:31, Eric V. Smith <eric@trueblade.com> wrote:
See also the rejected PEP 351.
Ah. So close to my idea as to be indistinguishable. That's a shame. Thanks, Cameron Simpson <cs@cskk.id.au>
It's worth noting that a rejected PEP isn't the final and uneditable conclusion of a proposal. If you can show that something in the past seventeen years means this should be revisited, then by all means, revive the idea. (I suspect that, in this case, the rejection still applies - sets are still the only thing you'd viably want to freeze - but the option is there if you feel you can answer the original objections. Seventeen years is a long time.) ChrisA