Ken Manheimer <klm@digicool.com>: > I think people are sounding off too much, posing features and opinions > when they don't *need* to do so. People should think twice before > posing new python features - and hold off, a lot more of the time. OK, the recent discussion has been chaotic. But it's had two results I think are valuable. 1. We killed off a bad syntax (for parallel iterations) and replaced it with a clean builtin function that will genuinely add to the language without adding undue complications (zip). 2. The PEPs will direct, and perhaps make unnecessary, a lot of future discussion on language extensions. Even failed PEPs will be valuable if they show that certain propositions that look initially attractive can't be well defined or can't justify their complexity overhead. Personally, I also think the case for range literals has been made even if the other PEPs fail on various grounds. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a> A ``decay in the social contract'' is detectable; there is a growing feeling, particularly among middle-income taxpayers, that they are not getting back, from society and government, their money's worth for taxes paid. The tendency is for taxpayers to try to take more control of their finances .. -- IRS Strategic Plan, (May 1984)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4