[Python-ideas] Proposal: Moratorium on Python language changes
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Oct 26 05:07:42 CET 2009
Guido van Rossum writes:
> The proposed moratorium is a *conscious decision*, an intentional
> policy meant to have a certain effect. This is just the opposite of
> evolution in nature (unless you believe in "intelligent design" :-).
By Clarke's Law, I see no way to distinguish between the presence and
the absence of intelligent design in nature.
> While I mentioned 3.x in my original message about the moratorium, I
> didn't mean to imply that the moratorium would solve the slow uptake
> directly. The intent was to give people who would otherwise work on
> language change proposals more time and motivation to work on porting
> 3rd party packages to Py3k.
Time, yes, but I'm not sure I see where the motivation comes from. Do
you mean something like:
remove all hope from "design + maybe implementation" proposals,
with the intent of encouraging "design + implementation + clear
application to use case" proposals.
where porting to Py3k should be a prolific source of use cases? ISTM
that has been the desired historical criterion for inclusion in Python
anyway. So a moratorium might reduce the number of "frivolous"
proposals, but is it really going to encourage work on porting?
(Those are all really yes/no questions from my standpoint.)
If not, Steven d'Aprano's line that Python has been quite stable
anyway, up to Python 3, and so (IIU him C) there's really no need for
a formal moratorium, becomes very plausible. That is, since there
doesn't seem to be a strong call for a moratorium from the Jython /
Cython / IronPython / PyPy end. (So far, that it. I don't suppose
the final word has been spoken by those developers, yet.)
> PS. My elbow needs a couple more weeks of rest. Limiting myself to
> ultra-short emails.
May the Intelligent Designer have mercy on your elbow!<wink>
More information about the Python-ideas