[Python-Dev] PEP 309

"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Sun Feb 27 19:05:18 CET 2005

Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> I would like for the principal advocates to reach a consensus that the
> proposed implementation is a winner.

That I cannot understand. Do you want the advocates to verify that the
implementation conforms to the specification? or that the implementation
of the PEP is faster than any other existing implementation of the PEP?

These two hold, I believe.

> Ideally, that decision should be
> informed by trying it out on their own, real code and seeing whether it
> offers genuine improvements.

Performance-wise, or usability-wise? Because usability-wise, all
implementations of the PEP are identical, so all implementations
of the PEP should offer the precisely same improvements.

> Along the way, they should assess whether
> it is as applicable as expected, whether the existing limitations are
> problematic, and whether performance is an issue.  

Ah, so you question the specification, not the implementation of it.

> My concern is that with Guido having approved the idea in abstract form,
> the actual implementation has escaped scrutiny.  Also, if the API is
> different from the PEP, acceptance should not be automatic.

AFAICT, the proposed patch implements the behaviour of the PEP exactly.

> If functional.partial() isn't a clear winner, it may be a reasonable to
> ask that it be released in the wild and evolve before being solidified
> in the standard library.  My sense is that that the current
> implementation is far from its highest state of evolution.

Again, this I cannot understand. I do believe that there is no better
way to implement the PEP. The PEP very explicitly defines what precisely
functional.partial is, and the implementation follows that specification
very closely.


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list