Status of PEP's?

[Bjorn Pettersen]

> From: David Eppstein [mailto:eppstein at ics.uci.edu] 
> 
> In article <mailman.1014922495.31163.python-list at python.org>,
>  "Bjorn Pettersen" <BPettersen at NAREX.com> wrote:
> 
> > And exactly this notation has been rejected in PEP 204 -- basically 
> > because it's butt-ugly in a Perl'ish sort of way. Besides, 
> this goes 
> > under the section of solving the "interval" problem which PEP 276
> > *explicitly* says it is not doing (and which I personally 
> don't find 
> > very compelling, especially if PEP 276 is adopted).
> 
> You can't have it both ways -- you seem to be saying that 
> it's not ok to 
> argue against PEP 276 on the basis that you'd like a better 
> general range 
> syntax, because that's not the problem the PEP is trying to 
> solve.  But 
> then in the parentheses you seem to be saying that it's ok to 
> argue against 
> proposals for a better range syntax on the basis that PEP 276 
> covers most 
> of the need.  Which is it?

I think it's fine to argue against 276 if you think what we need is
really a general solution to the interval problem, especially if you
have something new to contribute -- none of the current proposals seem
to have universal appeal. PEP 276 explicitly states that it's not trying
to solve the universal problem however, so I think it's unfair to
criticize it for not providing a general solution without also saying
that the only thing you'll accept is a general solution.

Since many of the brightest minds on c.l.py have tried hard to come up
with a general range syntax without much success, I would rather have
PEP 276 which solves the most common problem superbly. That it doesn't
try to come up with a general solution, but doesn't prevent one from
being implemented in the future is an additional bonus.

Keep-the-general-case-trivial-and-the-hard-cases-possible 'ly y'rs
-- bjorn