[Python-Dev] PEP 580/590 discussion

Petr Viktorin encukou at gmail.com
Mon May 6 10:47:06 EDT 2019

On 5/6/19 4:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Hello Petr,
> Thanks for your time. I suggest you (or somebody else) to officially 
> reject PEP 580.

I'll do that shortly.
I hope that you are not taking this personally. PEP 580 is a good 
design. PEP 590 even says that it's built on your ideas.

> I start working on reformulating PEP 590, adding some elements from PEP 
> 580. At the same time, I work on the implementation of PEP 590. I want 
> to implement Mark's idea of having a separate wrapper for each old-style 
> calling convention.
> In the mean time, we can continue the discussion about the details, for 
> example whether to store the flags inside the instance (I don't have an 
> answer for that right now, I'll need to think about it).

I'm abandoning per-instance flag proposal. It's an unnecessary 
complication; per-type flags are fine.

> Petr, did you discuss with the Steering Council? It would be good to 
> have some kind of pre-approval that PEP 590 and its implementation will 
> be accepted. I want to work on PEP 590, but I'm not the right person to 
> "defend" it (I know that it's worse in some ways than PEP 580).

As BDFL-delegate, I'm "pre-approving" PEP 590.
I mentioned some details of PEP 590 that still need attention. If there 
are any more, now's the time to bring them up.

And yes, I know that in some ways it's worse than PEP 580. That's what 
makes it a hard decision.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list