[Python-3000] PEP Parade

[Guido van Rossum]

On 5/1/07, Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
> > So the PEP submissions are in, and a few late ones will be submitted
> > ASAP. Let me write up a capsule review of what we've got. Please let
> > me know if I missed anything (e.g. a PEP that someone has committed to
> > write but hasn't submitted yet).
>
> (1)  The __this_*__ PEP was written and posted; I'll revise it slightly tonight.

__this__? What's that? I must've missed the posting of the pep, sorry.
You can mail me the PEP (best as an attachment) and I will assign it a
number and check it in.

> One benefit would be a minimal-change version of super.
>
> (2)  Calvin's and Tim's more complete reworking of super.

Oooh, I missed that too.

> (3)  final/once/name annotations -- I *think* this was dropped when
> case statements were rejected, but I'm not sure.

Unless there's a PEP that was posted before the deadline I don't want
to hear about it.

> > PEP: Eliminate __del__ (Raymond Hettinger)
>
> > I would be in favor of this or one of the alternative ideas for fixing
> > the can't-GC-a-cycle-with-__del__ issue if there was a clear recipe
> > and (if necessary) stdlib support for what to do instead. There are
> > real use cases for automatic finalization for which the atexit module
> > isn't the right solution and try/finally or with statements don't cut
> > it either.
>
> Does the alternative need to cover 100% of use cases?
>
> If it covers 99%, should the other 1% become impossible, or should we
> keep __del__ as fallback?

What 1% use case are you thinking of?

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)