[Python-Dev] Those import related syntax errors again...

[Tim Peters]

[/F]
> If a debate doesn't lead anywhere, it's just a waste of time.

If you end up being on the winning side, is it still a waste of time?  If
you end up being on the losing side of a debate, perhaps, sometimes.  But I
can't predict the future well enough to know the outcome in advance.

> Donning my devil's advocate suite, here are some recent observations:
>
> - Important decisions are made on internal PythonLabs meetings
>   (unit testing, the scope issue, etc), not by an organized python-
>   dev process.

Decisions are-- and were --made in Guido's head.  Python-Dev was established
to give him easier access to higher-quality input than was possible on
c.l.py at the time, and to give Python developers a higher S/N place to hang
out when discussing Python development.  Internal PythonLabs meetings are
really much the same, just on a smaller scale and with a higher-still S/N
ratio.  Both work for those purposes.  It isn't-- and wasn't --the purpose
of either to strip Guido of the last word.

>   Does anyone care about -1 and +1's anymore?

Did anyone ever <0.5 wink>?  A scattering of two-character arguments is
interesting to get a quick feel, but even I wouldn't *decide* anything on
that basis.  If this were an ANSI/ISO committee, a single -1 would have
absolute power -- and then we'd still be using Python 0.9.6 (ANSI/ISO
committees need soul-crushingly boring and budget-bustingly expensive
meetings regularly else consensus would never be reached on anything -- if
people get to veto in their spare time while sitting at home, and without
opponents blowing spit right in their face for the 18th time in 6 years,
there's insufficient pressure *to* compromise).

> - The PEP process isn't working ("I updated the PEP and checked
>   in the code", "but *that* PEP doesn't apply to *me*", etc).

Need to define "working".  I don't think it's what it should be yet, but is
making progress.

> - Impressive hacks are more important than concerns from people
>   who make their living selling Python technology (rather than a
>   specific application).  Codewise, nested scopes are amazing.
>   From a marketing perspective, it's a disaster.

Any marketing droid would believe that Python's current market is a fraction
of its potential market, and so welcome any "new feature" that makes new
sales easier.  c.l.py is a microcosm of this battlefield, and the cry for
nested scopes has continued unabated since the day lambda was introduced.
I've never met a marketing type (and I've met more than my share ...) who
wouldn't seize this as an opportunity to *expand* market share.  Sales
droids servicing existing accounts *may* grumble -- or the more inventive
may take it as an opportunity to drive home the importance of their
relationship to their customers ("it's us against them, and boy aren't you
glad you've got Amalgamated Pythonistries on your side!").

> (even more absurd allegations snipped)

With gratitude, and I'll skip even more absurd rationalizations <wink>.

> Am I entirely wrong?

Of course not.  The world isn't that simple.

indeed-the-world-is-heavily-nested<wink>-ly y'rs  - tim


PS:  At the internal PythonLabs mtg today, I voted against nested scopes.
But also for them.  Leaving that to Jeremy to explain.