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. > > _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
