Thomas Wouters wrote: > > Only in the most severe cases does it make sense to create a PEP > > specifically to be rejected. > > Yet if it isn't recorded, people will keep bringing it up. How about a > 'rejected ideas' PEP for ideas that are right out no matter how people > argue? A single PEP, with oneliners to describe ideas, one or two lines to > explain 'why not', references to the python-list or python-dev discussions, > if any, and a sign in big friendly letters saying "if you really must > discuss these subjects, do it on python-list, not python-dev". Some of the > stuff that could be in there: > > - implicit rather than explicit self: invalidates too many tricks > - omitting () on functioncalls: like implicit self > - changing all statements into expressions (e.g. logix): python isn't > (going to be) a functional language > - methods for tuples: tuples are records, not collections; use lists instead > - sigils to indicate 'self.' (e.g. @foo): loses readability, wins too little > - '?' and other non-alphanumerical characters in identifiers: like sigils > - strict private/public accessing: 'fake' protection; use closures instead > > etc. No need to come up with them all, I'm sure all the prize ideas will pop > back up eventually ;) the FAQ touches many of these. maybe a couple of clarifications to the relevant FAQ texts (explaining things in terms of design tradeoffs, rather than absolute truths) would be good enough ? </F>
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