PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Wed Feb 12 21:36:17 CET 2003


"Tim Hochberg" <tim.hochberg at ieee.org> wrote in message
news:PZt2a.53158$LW1.1766443 at news1.west.cox.net...

> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > On the contrary, as Paul also said in his response, the question
is
> > whether to replace the current idiom or let it stand.  So
preference
> > between the status quo and a proposed new situation is exactly to
the
> > point.  A choice between the two is exactly what people will be
voting
> > on.

> On the contrary,

On the contrary to what?

> the question is whether to replace the current idiom
_with_new_syntax_.

That is almost exactly what I said.  To requote,
"the question is whether to replace the current idiom or let it
stand".

In the context of a 1000-post discussion of possible new syntax, it is
slightly bizarre to assume or imply I meant anything other than 'with
new syntax'.  But if it make my statement clearer to you, please add
those three words.  As 'or for let it stand' [as is, without change],
Guido has stated that if there is no syntax change as a result of
PEP-308, he will not consider the issue again for the indefinite
future.  So 'new syntax' or 'no new syntax' [for a long while] *is*
the choice to be voted on.

>Not adopting new syntax does not stand in the way of
> declaring the and/or idiom to be bad form

As it already has been, ad nauseum.  I am well aware that *nothing*,
including the outcome of this PEP process, will stop people from
continuing to make ugly statements about how ugly and abominable other
people's code is, as if such subjective opinions were objective fact.

If the PEP is rejected, I will think it bad form for the people
responsible to be quite so critical of people who continue to combine
the existing two selection operators to make a selection.  But I won't
hold my breath.

> and standardizing on a new idiom or idioms.

Idioms for alternative value selections have been discussed for years.

> The resulting idioms may not be to your liking (too verbose
perhaps),

I am glad we do not have a Python Language Police, as in some
countries, even if some try to self-appoint themselves as such.

Terry J. Reedy






More information about the Python-list mailing list