On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 10:57, Yoni Lavi <yoni.lav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a number of Core devs that have taken strong positions against
> this change, citing various reasons ranging from "the addition of a
> function that returns a constant will cause bloat in the interpreter /
> needs to be tested / etc" to "what you really mean to ask for is set
> iteration stability, and we don't want that" to "identity based hashing is
> the default correct choice of a hashing function to use in any situation,
> unless we are forced by the requirements not to (even if it's
> disadvantageous compared to other choices)" to just straight appeals to
> authority ("rhettinger closed the issue on github so he must have done it
> for a good reason).
>
My position isn't an "appeal to authority", it's more a case of
acknowledging that core devs have a collective decision making role that is
normally exercised by consensus decisions with all but one or two of the
devs abstaining. In this case, so far only Raymond has not abstained, so
his view stands. Multiple core devs have contributed to these threads, and
likely more have read without commenting - but none of them have been
sufficiently convinced to state an opposing view on the tracker (which is
what matters here).
> I'm not sure if they actually believe what they say in all of these cases.
> To me, it sounds more like "please go away" than an honest argument on
> technical merit, but it matters little.
> I don't think anything can be changed with further technical discussion.
>
It's absolutely *not* "please go away" in my case. It's more "I see your
point, but I don't personally care enough to make an issue of the decision
on your behalf". Although I will admit that I have now reached the point
where I sort of wish this whole discussion *would* "go away" - whether by
you accepting that no-one's going to reverse the decision, or by another
core dev supporting the change on the tracker, rather than just posting
here and on Discourse. But I understand the temptation to just continue the
discussion without taking a formal stance (after all, I'm doing it myself).
> I do have another suggestion that I think merits a discussion. Maybe it
> will fare better. This change has a bit broader scope.
>
I think this is over-complicating things. I think the key merit of your
original proposal was its simplicity. Proposing more complicated ways of
getting the result you want is (IMO) unlikely to succeed, and is only
likely to cause people to become even more entrenched in their positions.
Can you give any explanation of why this proposal is better than your
original one, *apart* from "it's not been rejected yet"?
Seriously. No matter what your proposal, you need core dev support on the
tracker. IMO you stand more chance with your original proposal, in spite of
Raymond's rejection. But at this point, endlessly posting your views
everywhere isn't helping. Give people time to think and consider, and maybe
someone will decide to support the change. There's no urgency - 3.12 is a
year away, so that's the soonest this might be available.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/G4OSEPLPHANUZUJEJA7YSN733INMDND3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
