Confused about pep 318

Anthony Baxter anthonybaxter at gmail.com
Thu Aug 5 22:07:08 EDT 2004


On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:36:23 -0500, Edward K. Ream <edreamleo at charter.net> wrote:
> To repeat: given that pep 318 is grossly misleading, I contend that no
> proper discussion of it has ever taken place.  Sorry, but if you actively
> mislead the public, then the public _does_ have a right to complain.  The
> web is a huge place.  Expecting people to track it without proper notice of
> what is being discussed is patently unfair.

"Actively mislead the public"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Look, you keep insinuating that there was some sort of evil plot to slip
this into Python. I can assure you that this is NOT true, and I'm getting
more than a little bit fed up with this argument.

This feature was put into a2 because Guido's judgment was that it 
was appropriate to do so. The whole _point_ of an alpha cycle is that 
we can try things out, and we don't have to be backwards compatible
if it turns out to have been a bad decision.

As I've stated, _repeatedly_, yes, it would have been better had the PEP
been kept up to date. This didn't happen, but people are working on this.



More information about the Python-list mailing list