On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 4:56 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It means people place crazily high demands on new proposals. > I think the bar has been much too low for introducing new features over the last 5 years or so. Internal changes like the new dictionary implementation are fine, but user-facing changes should be exceedingly rare in the base language. This proposal doesn't come remotely close to such a good standard. I was consistently +0 on the 572 idea, as long as its worst excesses were trimmed, as in the final PEP. But after reading this discussion, I almost reconsider that opinion since its social effect seems to be a move towards accepting wild and unnecessary changes that "might be useful" for a few unusual programming patterns. Honestly, if you want Perl, and as many different ways to approach each problem as there are programmers (each with their own syntax niche), that language continues to be fully working. I'm not even writing that to be dismissive... There are actually some pretty and interesting ideas over there. But I very much want Python not to be like that, and to do most of my work in a readable language with as few special characters/signils as feasible. >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/