[Python-Dev] Draft proposal: Implicit self in Python 3.0

Sun Jan 8 22:19:17 CET 2006

Ian Bicking wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>>>[Thomas Wouters]
>>>>>>>My point isn't that it isn't archived somewhere (mailinglists, wiki, FAQ,
>>>the minds of many, many people, not just Python developers) but that it
>>>isn't easily findable and it isn't easily accessible in a single location. I
>>>thought PEP's where supposed to be that, and if I have a particular idea for
>>>new syntax or new semantics, PEPs would be the place I'd look, not the FAQ
>>>or a Wiki.
>>>>>>Luckily, in his benevolent infinite wisdom, I expect Guido reserved
>>PEP number 13 for exactly this purpose: for a meta-PEP to record the
>>unlucky PEP ideas that are so unlikely to get accepted that it's not
>>worth anyone's time to write an actual PEP for them. I like the
>>title:
>>>> Don't Bother: PEPs Rejected Before Being Written
>>>>No, I'm not kidding. At least I don't think I am.
>>> +1. I think it's rather patronizing to send things back to python-list 
> when you know people are wasting their time discussing them because they 
> will never be accepted.

Well, the problem is that most of these proposers think that their 
proposal deserve attention, is valuable no matter what, but python-dev
is not the place to defuse/clarify that in a gentle way for the 
proposer. Of course some people do exactly that here out of kindness 
etc., I personally don't think it's a good approach.
python-list is a better place to get clarifications about the way Python
is, will stay.
Half-baked, not well thought out ideas, as huge threads in the past
going nowhere have proven, are not healthy to python-dev s/n ratio.
Even with such a valuable PEP in place, I expect some people to need 
clarification discussions and python-list will still be the right place 
to have them.
> People on python-list have useful things to do 
> too, they don't just read to waste their time.
>> I would prefer PEP form over a wiki page, as I'd rather this be truly 
> authoritative, and only Guido can really completely reject an idea. 
> Justifying the rejections can be done by anyone though; maybe each idea 
> could link to a wiki page on the topic.
>> I think it's also important to be clear on what's being rejected. Often 
> these rejected ideas address a real issue, and if you think about the 
> issue from another angle you might be able to solve that without falling 
> into the trap that the oft-rejected proposal fell into. But it's easy 
> to confuse that the issue or use case is being explicitly ignored, 
> rather than the particulars. For instance, Thomas said "changing all 
> statements into expressions (e.g. logix): python isn't (going to be) a 
> functional language" -- and that's what shouldn't be in the PEP. All 
> statements aren't going to be expressions; the editorialization that 
> Python isn't going to be a functional language is both rather 
> inaccurate, misses the real reason for statements, and needlessly 
> alienates people who like functional programming (and they have been 
> *needlessly* alienated by discussions about lambda and filter).
>> So... maybe Guido or python-dev should write/vet the justifications too. 
> When you are putting up walls and specifically discouraging community 
> participation on certain issues, it should be done in a sensitive way.
>>