Wow! Fast! So, since I'm not a dev and don't know the ropes, what is the next step to get the method included? On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

Sure.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Gerald Britton wrote:

...

In the list archives, this thread

   http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003897.html

discusses adding a clear() method to list objects, to complement those available for sets and dictionaries.  Later in the thread:

   http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003933.html

Christian Heimes provided a patch to do it and R. H. commented that all it would take is Guido's blessing.

So, I'm wondering, can we do this?  What are the steps needed to ask this work to be blessed?

-- Gerald Britton _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

-- Gerald Britton

Guido van Rossum schrieb:

Ping Christian. :-)

Pong ;) I have to concur with Raymond. IMHO there is no real need for a list.clear() method. Do we want to extend the API for the sake of a common way to clear a mutable container? Christian PS: The patch was merely a finger exercise.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

ISTM, the language moratorium would preclude this change.

Oops, you're right. Scratch the go-ahead. :-( While PEP 3003 allows case-by-case exemptions for adding methods to built-in objects, I think this isn't one of those cases, since the work-around sure is simple enough, and has been in the language for 20 years now. ;-)

Also, since it doesn't actually add any new functionality, it is more of a documentation issue, teaching basic python idioms:

   del s[:] or    s[:] = []

Though it's a common-enough special case that it shouldn't need slice manipulations, which are a bit of an acquired taste. I probably would have added this if I'd anticipated dict.clear(), which wasn't always part of the language. --Guido

Raymond

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Gerald Britton wrote:

...

In the list archives, this thread

   http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003897.html

discusses adding a clear() method to list objects, to complement those available for sets and dictionaries.  Later in the thread:

   http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003933.html

Christian Heimes provided a patch to do it and R. H. commented that all it would take is Guido's blessing.

So, I'm wondering, can we do this?  What are the steps needed to ask this work to be blessed?

-- Gerald Britton _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 13:21, Gerald Britton wrote:

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

...

ISTM, the language moratorium would preclude this change.

Oops, you're right. Scratch the go-ahead. :-(

So does this mean I should bring it up again for the next round?

Yep. Which reminds me, how do we want to handle ideas that come up during hte moratorium? Do we simply want to force them to be brought up again when 3.3 development opens up, or should we settle them now and require they have a PEP or bug marked for 3.3? The former risks a thundering herd of idea but it does make sure only serious ideas get brought up as someone has to remember to mention it again in at least a year. -Brett

...

While PEP 3003 allows case-by-case exemptions for adding methods to built-in objects, I think this isn't one of those cases, since the work-around sure is simple enough, and has been in the language for 20 years now. ;-)

...

Also, since it doesn't actually add any new functionality, it is more of a documentation issue, teaching basic python idioms:

del s[:] or s[:] = []

Though it's a common-enough special case that it shouldn't need slice manipulations, which are a bit of an acquired taste. I probably would have added this if I'd anticipated dict.clear(), which wasn't always part of the language.

--Guido

...

Raymond

On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Gerald Britton wrote:

...

In the list archives, this thread

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003897.html

...

...

...

discusses adding a clear() method to list objects, to complement those available for sets and dictionaries. Later in the thread:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-April/003933.html

...

Christian Heimes provided a patch to do it and R. H. commented that all it would take is Guido's blessing.

So, I'm wondering, can we do this? What are the steps needed to ask this work to be blessed?

-- Gerald Britton _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

-- Gerald Britton _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 13:59, Guido van Rossum wrote:

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

...

Which reminds me, how do we want to handle ideas that come up during hte moratorium? Do we simply want to force them to be brought up again when 3.3 development opens up, or should we settle them now and require they have a PEP or bug marked for 3.3? The former risks a thundering herd of idea but it does make sure only serious ideas get brought up as someone has to remember to mention it again in at least a year.

I don't think we need to settle on a single process for this. If someone cares enough to write a PEP or file a bug let them do it. If they don't but remember when the moratorium ends, we can't stop them.

I suppose a new tracker category for this would be fine to add. If someone actually goes through the efforts of writing a PEP falling in this category we can add a new PEP status too.

For issues it's probably enough to either mark them against Python 3.3 or add a Moratorium keyword and simply not set their version in case the moratorium goes past 3.3. As for PEPs, we can mark their targeted version as 'Moratorium' or something. -Brett

On 2/5/2010 4:55 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

Which reminds me, how do we want to handle ideas that come up during hte moratorium? Do we simply want to force them to be brought up again when 3.3 development opens up, or should we settle them now and require they have a PEP or bug marked for 3.3?

It was already suggested/agreed that future versions (3.3, 3.4) be added to the tracker so that people add ticklers such as 'add xyx warning for 3.3'. This should be a feature request for 3.3.