[Python-ideas] PEP 550 dumbed down

[Barry Warsaw]

Jim J. Jewett wrote:
> I know I'm not the only one who is confused by at least some of the
> alternative terminology choices.  I suspect I'm not the only one who
> sometimes missed part of the argument because I was distracted
> figuring out what the objects were, and forgot to verify what was
> being done and why.  I also suspect that it could be much simpler to
> follow if the API were designed in the abstract, with the
> implementation left for later.

You're definitely not alone!  I think I get the gist of the proposal,
and its motivation, but I'm definitely confused by the terminology.  As
I stated elsewhere, the word "context" has a well-established meaning in
Python, with context managers, their protocols, and contextlib.  When
talking with another Pythonista three years from now, I don't want to
have to resolve which context they're talking about based on context. ;)

I think you have a point too about designing the abstract behavior and
API first, and then worry about implementation details (in fact, maybe
take implementation discussions out of the PEP for now, and maybe hash
that out in a PR).

I also think you're on to something when you suggest that sys may not be
the best place for these new APIs.  sys is already a mishmash of lots of
random stuff, and the concepts defined in PEP 550 are advanced enough
that many Python developers will never need to worry about them.
Putting them in sys leads to cognitive overload.  I'm not sure I'd put
them in builtins either, but a new module makes a lot of sense to me.
Plus, it means that we can choose more natural names for the APIs since
they'll be namespaced away in a separate module.

Cheers,
-Barry