On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> Sorry about your frustration. I should not have given you hope about PEP > 555 -- it was never going to make it, so I should just have spared you the > effort. Do you want to withdraw it or do I have to actually reject it? > > That's definitely not the reason for the frustration. You already told me earlier that you did not really like it. I think I know why you didn't, but we now have more reasons than we had then. We're definitely in a different place from where we started. And I still succeeded in the most important thing that needed to be done. The only thing is that, at least for now, nobody *really* needed the awesome, clean, flexible and super performant solution that I had to come up with to solve a wide class of problems which I thought many people would actually have. But that's not where the frustration came from either. I'll finish the PEP for archiving, and for throwing it on the pile of other PEPs that have tried to tackle these issues. -- Koos P.S. Of course this discussion really does not belong here, but at least the time_ns discussion is now on python-dev anyway. > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, that's an in-joke. Koos is expressing his disappointment in the >>> rejection of PEP 555 in a way that's only obvious if you're Dutch. >>> >>> >> Hmm, or more accurately, it has to do with me going crazy because of the >> frustration of how the PEP 555 discussions went. We could have arrived at >> the same conclusion [*] in much less time and with less pulling one's hair >> out. >> >> But this discrepancy probably comes from the fact that we're not dealing >> with the most pure kind of being Dutch here. >> >> —Koos >> >> [*] Although right now different people still have slightly different >> ideas about what that conclusion is. >> >> >> >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 08:04:25PM +0300, Koos Zevenhoven wrote: >>>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I'd like to have time.time_ns() -- this is most parallel to >>>> st_mtime_ns. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > Welcome to the list Guido! You sound like a C programmer. For many >>>> people, >>>> > that was the best language they knew of when they learned to program. >>>> But >>>> > have you ever tried Python? You should give it a try! >>>> >>>> You seem to be making a joke, but I have *no idea* what the joke is. >>>> >>>> Are you making fun of Guido's choice of preferred name? "time_ns" >>>> instead of "time_nanoseconds" perhaps? >>>> >>>> Other than that, I cannot imagine what the joke is about. Sorry for >>>> being so slow. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Steve >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Python-ideas mailing list >>>> Python-ideas@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Python-ideas mailing list >>> Python-ideas@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven + >> > > > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > -- + Koos Zevenhoven + http://twitter.com/k7hoven +
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
