[Python-Dev] Rejected ideas PEP (was re: Draft proposal: Implicit self in Python 3.0)

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 01:25 PM 1/8/2006 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 05:12:06PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
> > > comp.lang.python too.
>
> > Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP
> > specifically to be rejected.
>
>Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a
>'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people
>argue? A single PEP, with oneliners to describe ideas, one or two lines to
>explain 'why not', references to the python-list or python-dev discussions,
>if any, and a sign in big friendly letters saying "if you really must
>discuss these subjects, do it on python-list, not python-dev". Some of the
>stuff that could be in there:
>
>  - implicit rather than explicit self: invalidates too many tricks
>  - omitting () on functioncalls: like implicit self
>  - changing all statements into expressions (e.g. logix): python isn't
>    (going to be) a functional language
>  - methods for tuples: tuples are records, not collections; use lists instead
>  - sigils to indicate 'self.' (e.g. @foo): loses readability, wins too little
>  - '?' and other non-alphanumerical characters in identifiers: like sigils
>  - strict private/public accessing: 'fake' protection; use closures instead
>
>etc. No need to come up with them all, I'm sure all the prize ideas will pop
>back up eventually ;)

+1, along with a modification to the PEP procedures to require that people 
check the rejected ideas PEP before submitting a new proposal.  The 
"rejected ideas" PEP should presumably be a low-numbered process PEP.