[Python-ideas] Things that won't change (proposed PEP)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Mark E. Haase writes:

 > I don't think an informational PEP would make threads like Python Review
 > shorter and/or more productive. The OP clearly didn't do much research, so
 > it seems unlikely he would read an informational PEP.

But just saying "do your research" (which is quite reasonable without
the informational PEP) is much less friendly than including the URL to
the informational PEP in the kind of "canned response" you suggest.
That's what Steven is aiming at.

I'm not sure that a PEP is the best format, as the normal PEP process is
not a good match for something that is likely to need to be updated as
"good syntax" is discovered for ideas formerly considered un-Pythonic
and other languages come up with neat new ideas that don't have
obvious Pythonic syntax.  Andrew Barnert's blog post (thanks, Chris!)
http://stupidpythonideas.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-following-idioms-matters.html
is a good start, and Nick Coghlan's "Curious Efficiency" blog has
related material, I think.  Perhaps pointers to those would be good.

 > Moreover, the bikeshedding about what goes into this PEP will
 > inevitably lead to a troll who isn't satisfied with the explanation
 > of a particular item, or notices that a particular item isn't
 > included in the PEP, and then we're right back to the same problem:
 > litigating Python complaints that have already been discussed many
 > times on this list.

I don't see why that has to be the case.  The canned response here is
"Thank you for your suggestion.  The issue tracker is right over
that-a-way."

A suggestion for your canned response:

 > Hi, this appears to be your first post to python-ideas.

Unfortunately, there are a number of folks around who enjoy discussing
non-starters to death.  That's insulting to them, and therefore
against the spirit of the CoC.  I'd remove that, and write

 > This purpose of this list is to discuss speculative language ideas
 > for Python. If an idea gains traction, it can then be discussed and
 > honed into a detailed proposal.

followed by

    Your post does not present a clear, coherent proposal.

and

 > Your post does not fit with the purpose of the list, either because
 > it is too broad or because it doesn't contain enough technical
 > details about your proposal. You may wish to improve your proposal
 > by focusing on a single subject, researching historical
 > conversations on that subject, and adding more technical
 > details. Alternatively, you may wish to post on python-list[1]
 > instead, which is a general purpose list that does not have the
 > same constraints as this list.

Of course this presentation is broken, the grammar can be improved
easily.

 > Stack Overflow does something similar, where they have canned
 > responses to low-quality questions. This makes it easy for the
 > community to self-moderate in a respectful manner.

We have a few of those already.  This would be a useful addition.