Hello, On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:12:53 +1100 Chris Angelico <[email protected]> wrote:
[] > But Paul's recent track record of proposals isn't like that. They're > not part of the language. Everything was not part of the language, until it became. And "a language" is multi-level structure in the first place. For example, module "audioop" is not part of *the language*, it's part of *the language stdlib*. And more and more voices are heard to treat such modules not as the part of *the language stdlib*, but a part of *particular implementation's bundled library*, which might even got there by accident in the first place, and treat them correspondingly: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0594/ Again, do you see a pattern here? Some things which you think as "part of the language" are actually not. Can you imagine the opposite possibility - some things are much more related to "the language" (outer layers of it) than proverbial audioop? > If I start a thread recommending that > Python's int type be redefined as a 19-bit signed integer with twos > complement semantics, would that be received as a sane proposal, or > would people say "no, Python's integer won't change semantics, go make > your own fork"? That's why I never started such a thread ;-). But I imagine us having a discussion one of these years, about "what is the syntactic way to switch default implementation of the 'int' type for the whole runtime?" > > ChrisA -- Best regards, Paul mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5WD5DMXOUQ4367LW3VNSPQO2WTGTOJBE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
