At 01:25 PM 1/8/2006 +0100, Thomas Wouters wrote:
> 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 ;)

+1, along with a modification to the PEP procedures to require that people 
check the rejected ideas PEP before submitting a new proposal.  The 
"rejected ideas" PEP should presumably be a low-numbered process PEP.

_______________________________________________
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