re PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Arthur Siegel]

Erik writes -

>I'm not really sure how beneficial this would be. In the real 
>world, not everything about a programming language -- even
>a low overhead language like Python -- can be instantly 
>intuited by non-programmers.

Isn't this exactly the argument that seems to be consistently 
rejected when put forth by those of us that feel that much of
this concern about 'non-programmers' is, at best, much ado 
about nothing and at worst directly counterproductive to
Python status as a language particularly useful as an 
introduction to real world programming.

There seems to be two forms of status quo seekers in 
the Python community - one, that sees that status quo 
in the semantics of Python as of its development at a point
in time (let's say 1.5.2) - and feel there should be some serious
burden of proof on those seeking semantic changes.
And even expect Guido to at least seriously try to carry
that burden. 

I happen to be of that camp.

The other seems to take the position that Guido got us to
1.5.2,  the status quo is in accepting his intuitions about
moving forward from there, the burden of proof being squarely
on those who seek to question or resist those intuitions.

Which I as a member of the other camp realize to be a
reasonable position.

But one to which I (and others) are constitutionally 
unable to adapt.

What does seem clearest is that the rest
is pretty much just a debating game.

Art