Status of PEP's?

[Samuele Pedroni]

> Samuele Pedroni wrote:
>
> > Maybe this is a useful insight:
> >
> > in mathematetics it is not uncommon to
> > identify the natural numbers with the set
> > of their predecessors
> >
> > 0 = {}
> > 1 = {0} = {{}}
> > 2 = {0, 1} {{},{{}}}
> > etc
>
> Ok, I won't argue this notation exists in some areas of mathematics, but
it's
> definitely _not_ a common one for the 'general public'. I've been doing
> mathematical physics work for years, so at least I have a passing
familiarity
> with common notations and conventions in math.
>
> And it's definitely not an intuitive one.
...
> Python is a general purpose language, not one to be used only by number
> theorists. Putting at a level as basic as the integers a convention which
> allows things like 'for i in 3' to be valid iteration code really sounds
> bizarre and counter intuitive to me.
>
> But maybe it's just me.
>

Stop please, I have said that I support the PEP: no

this was just an insight about the only  POV I could find to make
sense out of the proposal, btw it seems that the supporters
have not done such an effort.

For me it is fair if someone says that if this is the kind of argument
needed to make sense out of the proposal, then the proposal
cannot fly. Or if the supporter want to use it or are stimulated
to find something better or start a crusade to teach model theory to
everyone.

Look at it as purely informative.

regards, Samuele Pedroni.