[Python-Dev] PEP 309

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sun Feb 27 21:49:24 CET 2005

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:05:18 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis"
<martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> 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.

This is where I get confused as well. PEP 309 specifies a function,
and this specification has been accepted for inclusion in Python. The
discussion seems to centre around whether that acceptance was correct.

While I'm not saying that it's too late to attempt to persuade Guido
to reverse himself, it does seem to me to be a lot of fuss over a
fairly small function - and no-one said anything like this at the

When I put up 5 reviews to get Martin to look at this, I honestly
believed that it was a simple case of an accepted PEP with a complete
implementation (admittedly scattered over a couple of SF patches), and
would simply be a matter of committing it.

IMHO, the burden is on those who want the "Accepted" status revoking
to persuade Guido to pronounce to that effect. Otherwise, based on the
standard PEP workflow process, it's time to move on, and ensure that
the patches provide a complete implementation, and assuming they do to
commit them.

(But I don't want to put myself up as a big "champion" of PEP 309 - I
like it, and I'd like to get the "accepted and there's a patch, but
not yet implemented" status resolved, but that's all. I'm not going to
switch to Perl if the patch isn't accepted :-))


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list