[Python-ideas] Proposal: Moratorium on Python language changes

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

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>