On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 09:56, Brendan Barnwell <brenb...@brenbarn.net> wrote: > > Have a read of the PEP's rejection notice at the top. To revive the > > PEP, the objections to it need to be solved. > > It seems that the rationale that was used in the PEP was fairly > narrowly focused on the comparison with things like dict.get() and the > idea of EAFP. A somewhat broader justification might be something along > these lines:
Drastic cut because this is basically little more than a +1 comment, but that rationale sounds a *lot* better than the original one in the PEP (that got rejected). I'm slightly skeptical that just modifying the rationale and resubmitting it is genuinely all we need to do, but is there any way we could get a steer from the SC or someone as to whether that would be OK, or if not, what else would be needed? Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/PIK3DQ27PUQ4T3XFCWOLKKTVT7H3WN3G/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
