Why "from __future__" stinks; a counter-offer
jeremy at alum.mit.edu
Mon Mar 19 20:19:09 CET 2001
>>>>> "VC" == Vadim Chugunov <chega_ at yahoo.com> writes:
>> might be OK -- alas, without a PEP, it's a non-starter).
VC> But, surely, the PEP can be updated! This "from __future__"
VC> syntax is ugly, ugly, ugly!!!
If someone else wants to write a PEP and implement it this week, it
would be considered. Tim wrote the PEP. I implemented it. We're
both going to be spending most of our waking hours this week getting
ready for the beta release on Friday. We have no time and less
interest in implementing something other than the __future__
mechanism. We think it is a good solution to the problem it addresses.
But neither of us is the BDFL. If someone writes a PEP and implements
it in the next day or two, he or she may be able to convince Guido
that it is better than __future__. In the absence of someone writing
a new PEP, nothing is going to change.
More information about the Python-list