On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 10:35 AM Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 23:18, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Part of the problem is that it is really REALLY hard to figure out > > what the actual objections are. I asked, and the one clear answer I > > got was one subjective opinion that the cognitive load exceeded the > > benefit. Great! That's one person's concern. I've responded to that by > > clarifying parts of the cognitive load problem, and that's about as > > far as that can go. > > Um, what parts of my response were unclear? I gave 4 specific points, > Brendan gave 4 more (there wasn't much overlap with mine, either). > > Multiple people have mentioned that the proposed syntax is confusing. > You don't have to respond to everyone individually, and indeed you > shouldn't - it's the cumulative effect that matters. Telling 10 people > that their concern "is one person's concern" doesn't address the fact > that 10 people felt similarly. And honestly, there's only about 10 > active participants in this thread, so even 5 people with reservations > about the syntax is still "half the people who expressed an opinion".
I have attempted to explain the syntax. What is confusing? def f(x=spam): ... def f(x=>spam): ... I'm not sure what concerns need to be addressed, because I don't understand the concerns. Maybe I'm just getting caught up on all the side threads about "deferreds are better" and "it should be a magical function instead" and I've lost some of the basics? Feel free to repost a simple concern and I will attempt to respond. > Yes, many of the concerns are somewhat subjective, and many of them > are subject to a certain amount of interpretation. That's the nature > of this sort of issue. If I said to you that the biggest issue here > was that "in the group of people on python-ideas who were motivated > enough to get involved in discussions, about half of the participants > were arguing against the proposal"ยน would that be a concrete enough > objection for you? Count it as my 5th objection, if you like. I know > we're not putting the PEP to a vote here, but proposed changes *are* > supposed to achieve a certain level of consensus (in the normal course > of events - of course the SC can approve anything, even if it's hugely > unpopular, that's their privilege). > EVERYONE is arguing against the proposal. Quite frankly, I'm just about ready to throw the whole thing in, because this entire thread has devolved to complaints that are nearly impossible to respond to - or are just repetition of things that ARE responded to in the PEP. Maybe we don't need any new features in Python. Maybe Python 3.10 is already the perfect language, and we should just preserve it in amber. ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/I2ZDZIX3ZYQ4EDCR3DHYXT36Z4UC45Q2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
