PEP 308: A PEP Writer's Experience - CON

Aahz aahz at
Sat Feb 8 18:14:01 CET 2003

In article <mailman.1044720563.25713.python-list at>,
Michael Chermside  <mcherm at> wrote:
>[4] Quit changing Python -- I liked it as a small language
>If you compare the introduction of a ternary operator to recent
>changes, it's a much smaller change than the introduction of list
>comprehensions, or introducing generators.  It won't break any code
>like fixing division did. It is not a deep and powerful change like
>nested scopes or new-style classes. About the only change it's
>comparable to is the introduction of boolean. Really... there's no new
>conceptual overhead (not a deep or confusing idea like metaclasses) --
>I understand why some might like to slow the changes to Python, but
>this is not the right change to object to.

It introduces more parsing overhead in human readability than any change
since list comprehensions, and it introduces more semantic/syntactic
overhead in human readability than generators.  (I'm still deeply unhappy
about losing the fight to add a keyword to the front of generators.)
Aahz (aahz at           <*>

Register for PyCon now!

More information about the Python-list mailing list