On 5/6/19 4:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Hello Petr, > > Thanks for your time. I suggest you (or somebody else) to officially > reject PEP 580. I'll do that shortly. I hope that you are not taking this personally. PEP 580 is a good design. PEP 590 even says that it's built on your ideas. > I start working on reformulating PEP 590, adding some elements from PEP > 580. At the same time, I work on the implementation of PEP 590. I want > to implement Mark's idea of having a separate wrapper for each old-style > calling convention. > > In the mean time, we can continue the discussion about the details, for > example whether to store the flags inside the instance (I don't have an > answer for that right now, I'll need to think about it). I'm abandoning per-instance flag proposal. It's an unnecessary complication; per-type flags are fine. > Petr, did you discuss with the Steering Council? It would be good to > have some kind of pre-approval that PEP 590 and its implementation will > be accepted. I want to work on PEP 590, but I'm not the right person to > "defend" it (I know that it's worse in some ways than PEP 580). As BDFL-delegate, I'm "pre-approving" PEP 590. I mentioned some details of PEP 590 that still need attention. If there are any more, now's the time to bring them up. And yes, I know that in some ways it's worse than PEP 580. That's what makes it a hard decision.
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