[Python-ideas] Pre-conditions and post-conditions

[Marko Ristin-Kaufmann]

Hi Jonathan and Paul,
Thank you very much for your suggestions! I will try to contact the author
of the PEP.

Let me clarify a bit a potential misunderstanding. Please mind that
contracts are not tied to individual variables, but to expressions. Think
of it as defining a lambda which takes as input all the arguments of the
function (and a result variable in case of post-conditions) which always
needs to evaluate to True.

Cheers,
Marko

Le jeu. 16 août 2018 à 12:24, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> a écrit :

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 10:41, Jonathan Fine <jfine2358 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marko
> >
> > Thank you for introducing yourself, and clearly stating your question.
> > That helps us all. You asked:
> >
> > > Could somebody update me on the state of the discussion on this matter?
> >
> > I think bring the existing PEP up to date would be a good starting
> > point. Its content hasn't been changed since 2003 (except for PEP-wide
> > admin changes. (Recall that Python 3.0 was released in 2008.)
> >
> > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0316/
> > https://github.com/python/peps/commits/master/pep-0316.txt
> >
> > In fact, revising the PEP might be enough to answer your question.
> > What do you think, Marko?
> >
> > Experts: is there a process for revising old PEPs, such as this one?
> > Or at least a precedent we could follow (or adapt)?
>
> I'm not aware of a formal process, but I'd have thought the following
> steps would be a reasonable approach:
>
> 1. Review the PEP, and research the discussions that happened at the
> time, particularly of interest is why the PEP was deferred.
> 2. Consider what (if anything) has changed since the original deferral
> (which could simply be "time has moved on, people's views may have
> changed" but ideally would include a bit more in the way of concrete
> motivation).
> 3. Contact the original PEP author and ask if he is interested in
> reopening the discussion, collaborating on a revision, or handing the
> PEP over.
> 4. Start up a discussion here, pointing out the original PEP and
> summarising the previous debate and why you want to restart the
> discussion. If you're hoping to change the details of the original
> PEP, summarise your changes and why you feel they are an improvement
> over the original.
>
> To answer the OP's question more directly:
>
> > Could somebody update me on the state of the discussion on this matter?
>
> As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion on this subject
> since the PEP 316 discussions which ended up in its deferral. Elazar
> mentioned PEP 563, and there *may* have been mention of design by
> contract uses in the discussions on that PEP, but you'd have to search
> the mailing list archives to confirm that one way or another.
>
> Hence the suggestions that if you want to restart discussion, reviving
> PEP 316 is likely the best approach.
>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180816/6d9b438d/attachment-0001.html>