Python handles globals badly.

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Sep 12 04:27:48 CEST 2015


On 10/09/2015 23:25, tdev at freenet.de wrote:
> Some notes to the "global"-keyword and the other proposals.
>
> It has been proposed to have these six enhancements
>
> 1. optional keyword "global"

Won't happen.

> 2. switch statement

Won't happen.

> 3. less restrictive indentation

Won't happen.

> 4. universal scope

No idea what you mean by this.

> 5. goto label

Won't happen.

> 6- "include" script statement

No idea what you mean by this.

>
> with following proofs uncommented:
>

Your "proofs" hold about as much water as a bottomless bucket.

> There is the big question:
>
> Who is responding or has responded?
> Extreme Programmers, Python-Hardliner, Python-Evangelists, ... .
> Presumably no core Python Programmers (wrting compiler and standard library stuff)

Core Python Programmers have better things to do than waste their time 
on rubbish like this.  Examples include writing code and fixing bugs.  I 
understand that some of them are actually really weird and do other 
things like paid jobs, see their families, take holidays and worst of 
all, have other hobbies.

>
> On Google groups you can currently read for this thread:
> 37 Authors. 152 posts. 443 views.
>
> That is not that much for views (probably mostly from the writer's itself)
>
> So, is this really the place where a PEP can be started?
> When has a proposal to be accepted? If ten-thousands say yes?
> Which ten-thousands? Who decides it?
>

The BDFL or his delegate decides, not that a PEP like this should be 
written.  If you want to waste your time please feel free to go ahead, I 
won't stop you.  However I do feel you should put this on python-ideas 
where it will be shot to pieces and then with any luck we'll get some 
peace and quiet.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence



More information about the Python-list mailing list