Status of PEP's?

David Eppstein eppstein at ics.uci.edu
Thu Feb 28 22:13:17 CET 2002


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?
-- 
David Eppstein       UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
eppstein at ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/



More information about the Python-list mailing list