[Python-3000] PEP 3131 accepted
jcarlson at uci.edu
Wed May 23 10:29:57 CEST 2007
Ka-Ping Yee <python at zesty.ca> wrote:
> I can see that I don't stand a very high chance of convincing you.
> But I'd like to make sure you understand what I'm getting at, anyway.
> (And I will get to some specific suggestions at the end of this
> The key thing is that the language definition is about to transition
> from something which has always "fit in your head", and which holds
> that property as a core value, to something which cannot possibly fit
> in anyone's head no matter how hard they try. (This core value of
> Python is not something I see as having been a core value of Java,
> and it's one of the reasons I like Python better.)
> If we're going to introduce a significant new source of complexity,
> let's at least make it easy to keep things simple (and reliably
> simple) for those who want to do so; we can expect this to be the vast
> majority, given interoperability and extensibility concerns, existing
> industry practices, and the policy for the Python standard library.
> What do you think?
For what it's worth, I've been wary of PEP 3131 for a while (if not
outright against it). From identical character glyph issues (which have
been discussed off and on for at least a year), to editing issues (being
that I write and maintain a Python editor), to code sharing issues (and
the ghettoization of code as Jim Jewett calls it), everything in between,
and even things that we haven't thought of.
Yes, PEP 3131 makes writing software in Python easier for some, but for
others, it makes maintenance of 3rd party code a potential nightmare
(regardless of 'community standards' to use ascii identifiers).
More information about the Python-3000