Any comments? My draft of a new PEP.

Bruce Sass bsass at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Fri Aug 17 20:27:38 CEST 2001


On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Gerhard Häring wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:44:34 GMT, Courageous <jkraska1 at san.rr.com> wrote:
> >>    [me]
> >>    To avoid long transition periods when a new Python feature requires a new
> >>    keyword, this PEP proposes to reserve a set of keywords "in advance".
> >
> > A good idea overall, IMO.
> >
> >>    abstract, directive, foreign, interface, static, yield
> >
> >I think we'd have to talk seriously about _which_ keywords, and peronally
> >believe that Guido and team should handle the whole thing.
>
> I agree. But they should IMHO reserve any keywords they might possible use in
> future versions in a bunch. This would avoid from __future__ kludges and reduce
> the temptation of "clever" reusing of existing keywords.

It may reduce "__future__ kludges", but __future__ can do more than
just tie up keywords...  I don't thing many uses of __future__ would
be avoided.  In a sense, it would be like trading a working time
machine for prescient visions.


- Bruce





More information about the Python-list mailing list