[PEP 202 listcomps] (was RE: [Python-Dev] Product iteration)

[Tim Peters]

[Moshe]
> A large part of the problem in list comprehensions (I think)
> is that we need to allow more then one "for" term, so we can
> iterate over the product of several lists.  ...

[Barry A. Warsaw]
> All this belongs in PEP 202.  Can we please stop discussing it here
> until that PEP is done?

But closed discussions are not the way to build a PEP:  it's a PEP
champion's job to *summarize* significant opposing viewpoints in the
rationale, but there's no way to judge "significant" without intense
community involvement.  Vigorous open discussion is vital to any stds
process.

> Tim Peters owns it, so until he assigns it to someone else, I suggest
> that if you have an opinion on list comprehensions, send your comments
> to him.  Let Tim collect all the comments and write the PEP.

This is not how I want to do it.  In the particular case of list
comprehensions, everyone (well, everyone both conscious and sane <wink>) is
sick of the debate because it's been going on for *years*, and was almost
purely repetitive long before Greg Ewing made his first patch.

In this case I happen to think Moshe is trying to solve "a problem" likely
nobody else sees as a problem, but I can't tell without seeing how others
react to his (bizarre <wink>) suggestion.  A PEP isn't a dumping ground for
every random suggestion that comes along, either -- open discussion is
needed to narrow things down to the truly serious alternatives.  A PEP
writer's job should be more editor than arbiter:  Guido is the only BDFL
here!

All that said, I have an enormous backlog of listcomp msgs still to plow
through, and I'm going to flatly ignore any in the future unless they have

    PEP 202

in the Subject line (as this retitled msg has).

A pep-dev mailing list is clearly a very good idea, but until one is set up
I'm afraid python-dev is the only natural place to bear the unbearable (to
some) pep-dev traffic.