On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 05:12:06PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>  On 1/6/06, Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr@[...].net> wrote:
>  > Then simply reject the PEP and the discussion can be stopped on
>  > comp.lang.python too.

>  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 ;)

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@[...].net> 

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev-ml%40activestate.c
om