Hi Jonathan and Paul, Thank you very much for your suggestions! I will try to contact the author of the PEP.
Let me clarify a bit a potential misunderstanding. Please mind that contracts are not tied to individual variables, but to expressions. Think of it as defining a lambda which takes as input all the arguments of the function (and a result variable in case of post-conditions) which always needs to evaluate to True. Cheers, Marko Le jeu. 16 août 2018 à 12:24, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 10:41, Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Marko > > > > Thank you for introducing yourself, and clearly stating your question. > > That helps us all. You asked: > > > > > Could somebody update me on the state of the discussion on this matter? > > > > I think bring the existing PEP up to date would be a good starting > > point. Its content hasn't been changed since 2003 (except for PEP-wide > > admin changes. (Recall that Python 3.0 was released in 2008.) > > > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0316/ > > https://github.com/python/peps/commits/master/pep-0316.txt > > > > In fact, revising the PEP might be enough to answer your question. > > What do you think, Marko? > > > > Experts: is there a process for revising old PEPs, such as this one? > > Or at least a precedent we could follow (or adapt)? > > I'm not aware of a formal process, but I'd have thought the following > steps would be a reasonable approach: > > 1. Review the PEP, and research the discussions that happened at the > time, particularly of interest is why the PEP was deferred. > 2. Consider what (if anything) has changed since the original deferral > (which could simply be "time has moved on, people's views may have > changed" but ideally would include a bit more in the way of concrete > motivation). > 3. Contact the original PEP author and ask if he is interested in > reopening the discussion, collaborating on a revision, or handing the > PEP over. > 4. Start up a discussion here, pointing out the original PEP and > summarising the previous debate and why you want to restart the > discussion. If you're hoping to change the details of the original > PEP, summarise your changes and why you feel they are an improvement > over the original. > > To answer the OP's question more directly: > > > Could somebody update me on the state of the discussion on this matter? > > As far as I am aware, there has been no discussion on this subject > since the PEP 316 discussions which ended up in its deferral. Elazar > mentioned PEP 563, and there *may* have been mention of design by > contract uses in the discussions on that PEP, but you'd have to search > the mailing list archives to confirm that one way or another. > > Hence the suggestions that if you want to restart discussion, reviving > PEP 316 is likely the best approach. > > Paul > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/