Douglas S. Blank wrote: > Kirby, > > As a teacher, I don't have time to argue over on python-dev what should > and should not be included in the language. And don't want to! I am > thinking of our "petition nonsense" as a data point for those people > that do take the time over on python-dev to figure out the best thing to > do next, and I'll trust them. > > It seemed to at least a few people on the list that python-dev'ers may > not have fully considered the ramifications of this particular change in > regards to teaching. We simply want to let them know about this > oversight. John has written probably the best-selling textbook for intro > Python; if he is concerned, then they should at least take a second look > at it (whatever "it" might be.)
I think this is a good idea; this entire discussion will be rather useless if no one on py-dev or py3k sees it. You don't have to necessarily speak for everyone or for edu-sig, except to note that many people want both input() and raw_input(), and point people at the discussion, and let the discussion progress however it does. The py-dev/py3k lists have a limited audience with a very specific perspective and set of interests, and outside perspectives are useful. Maybe not always appreciated, but at least useful ;) I don't think the email has to be perfect. Maybe change "consensus" to "fairly wide agreement", send it off as you wrote it, and then you and edu-sig can let it go from there without further comment. [I suspect that input() in its current form will not remain, but raw_input() may, but it entirely depends on whether anyone expresses interest in it] -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
