A counter-counter-proposal for PEP 236: #pragma( nested_scopes)

Martin von Loewis loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de
Sat Mar 3 10:58:29 CET 2001

"Tim Peters" <tim.one at home.com> writes:

> That would be much better to me.  You need to write a PEP for this, though!
> As is, "the patch" is a moving target and it's not at all clear how you
> intend for this gimmick to evolve.  For example, in other msgs I read today,
> you're saying that "directive" *will* be a keyword, someday -- I had not
> guessed that (to the contrary, the emphasis before today was on that
> "directive" was *not* being made a reserved word).  It needs a spec.

I'm surprised that you evaluate the present based on what I think
about the future. I think I've given a specification of the feature as
implemented. I'd happily add a specificiation of the directive
statement (including plans that I have how it should look in Python
2.5.2 :) into PEP 236, as a section "Alternative Proposal" - if you
allow me to do that. I'd rather not author a new PEP, as the directive
statement addresses the same problem as does PEP 236.


More information about the Python-list mailing list