Mailing List Archive: Python: Dev

PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium

1 2 3 4

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

john.arbash.meinel at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 4:39 PM

Post #76 of 94 (1152 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

...

> A moratorium isn't cost-free. With the back-end free to change, patches
> will go stale over 2+ years. People will lose interest or otherwise
> move on. Those with good ideas but little patience will be discouraged.
> I fully expect that, human nature being as it is, those proposing a
> change, good or bad, will be told not to bother wasting their time,
> there's a moratorium on at least as often as they'll be encouraged to
> bide their time while the moratorium is on.
>

I believe if you go back to the very beginning of this thread, Guido
considers this a *feature* not a *bug*.

He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
point to say "and neither will anything else for a while".

I don't mean to put words into his mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

John
=:->

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

metawilm at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 5:03 PM

Post #77 of 94 (1150 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve [at] pearwood> wrote:
> Willem, the rationale for this PEP is to give alternative
> implementations the chance to catch up with CPython.
>
> Given your statement that CLPython is quite complete on the language
> level, but missing standard library features, how do you think the
> moratorium will help CLPython?

It would be great to have a pause in Python-the-language, so that
CLPython might at the end of the moratorium finally be up to date with
the latest 2.x and 3.x features.

Supporting standard libraries is a bigger challenge, as the ones
written in C need rewriting. Whether or not there is a pause on that
front does not matter too much to that situation.

- Willem
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

tjreedy at udel

Nov 8, 2009, 11:33 AM

Post #78 of 94 (1132 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
> tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
> going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
> point to say "and neither will anything else for a while".

I have not said anything on this topic either way. But I think a general
moratorium is a false solution to that particular problem. Guido should
just make a clear pronouncement (again) and let people quote that in
response to initial posts, before they *appear* to gain steam. Each time
Python doubles in popularity, the number of people wanting such things
will approximately double. That is the price of success.

Terry Jan Reedy

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

greg at krypto

Nov 8, 2009, 12:56 PM

Post #79 of 94 (1132 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle <ubershmekel [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward <bobbyrward [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
>>
>
> I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
> if not for the deprecation warnings. Most people won't turn on the switch
> with the extra warnings.
> --yuv

Yep and their code will break in the future as a result. Thats their
problem (or whoever employed them and neglected to do code reviews and
beat them with a stick for using a Python 1.x "feature" in 2009).

SUGGESTION: Our Whats New document currently has a single "new,
improved and deprecated" section in it. We should make Deprecations
its own section so that they're easy to find all in one concise place
when upgrading code between releases.

Having seen the fallout from adding deprecating warnings to code: many
annoyed developers whos workflow you've interrupted who will all
eventually turn the warning off by default at all times. I have to
agree. The DeprecationWarning being on by default is a failed
experiement. We should treat it and the rarely noticed
PendingDeprecationWarning as the same thing by default.

-gps
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

g.brandl at gmx

Nov 8, 2009, 1:27 PM

Post #80 of 94 (1134 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

Gregory P. Smith schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Yuvgoog Greenle <ubershmekel [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Bobby R. Ward <bobbyrward [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>
>>> A switch to ENABLE those warnings?
>>>
>>
>> I think a few people I know would still be raising strings like exceptions
>> if not for the deprecation warnings. Most people won't turn on the switch
>> with the extra warnings.
>> --yuv
>
> Yep and their code will break in the future as a result. Thats their
> problem (or whoever employed them and neglected to do code reviews and
> beat them with a stick for using a Python 1.x "feature" in 2009).
>
> SUGGESTION: Our Whats New document currently has a single "new,
> improved and deprecated" section in it. We should make Deprecations
> its own section so that they're easy to find all in one concise place
> when upgrading code between releases.

Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.

Georg

--
Thus spake the Lord: Thou shalt indent with four spaces. No more, no less.
Four shall be the number of spaces thou shalt indent, and the number of thy
indenting shall be four. Eight shalt thou not indent, nor either indent thou
two, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Tabs are right out.

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

greg.ewing at canterbury

Nov 8, 2009, 1:28 PM

Post #81 of 94 (1133 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

John Arbash Meinel wrote:

> He wanted to introduce a moratorium at least partially because he was
> tired of endless threads about anonymous code blocks, etc. Which aren't
> going to be included in the language anyway, so he may as well make a
> point to say "and neither will anything else for a while".

If anonymous code blocks still get discussed even when
they have no chance of being accepted, this suggests that
a moratorium is *not* going to stop discussion of new
features.

I'm a bit confused about Guido's reasons for wanting a
moratorium. He started out by saying that the intention
wasn't to stop people discussing ideas, then later he
seemed to say that he was finding all these discussions
were distracting, then he explicitly said he wanted to
"crush" people's hopes of getting new features into the
language. That all sounds like he actually *does* want
to discourage such discussions.

--
Greg
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

solipsis at pitrou

Nov 8, 2009, 1:38 PM

Post #82 of 94 (1134 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

Greg Ewing <greg.ewing <at> canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
> If anonymous code blocks still get discussed even when
> they have no chance of being accepted, this suggests that
> a moratorium is *not* going to stop discussion of new
> features.

Well, if they get discussed, it's probably that some people can't help
participating in the discussions, even though they know the idea is doomed to
failure ;)

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

steve at pearwood

Nov 8, 2009, 3:06 PM

Post #83 of 94 (1135 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
> pause, not a permanent halt.

Proposal:

No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.

3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally
allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the 2.x
to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed.

Advantages:

* It slows down changes to the language while still allowing
sufficiently high-standard new features.

* Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim for.
Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language
version will last 2-3 years.

* It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban on
new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known
schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the
uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure".

--
Steven D'Aprano
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

debatem1 at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 4:01 PM

Post #84 of 94 (1127 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve [at] pearwood> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
>> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
>> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
>> pause, not a permanent halt.
>
> Proposal:
>
> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
>
> 3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally
> allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the 2.x
> to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed.
>
> Advantages:
>
> * It slows down changes to the language while still allowing
> sufficiently high-standard new features.
>
> * Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim for.
> Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language
> version will last 2-3 years.
>
> * It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban on
> new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known
> schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the
> uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure".
>
>
> --
> Steven D'Aprano

FWIW, I view a definite end point as a definite plus.

Geremy Condra
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

jnoller at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 5:22 PM

Post #85 of 94 (1128 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve [at] pearwood> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
>>> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
>>> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an
>>> exceptional
>>> pause, not a permanent halt.
>>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3,
>> 3.5, ...).
>> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
>> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
>>
>> 3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally
>> allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the
>> 2.x
>> to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed.
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> * It slows down changes to the language while still allowing
>> sufficiently high-standard new features.
>>
>> * Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim
>> for.
>> Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language
>> version will last 2-3 years.
>>
>> * It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban
>> on
>> new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known
>> schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the
>> uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure".
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steven D'Aprano
>
>
> FWIW, I view a definite end point as a definite plus.
>
> Geremy Condra
>

There is a time outlined in the pep.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

debatem1 at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 5:45 PM

Post #86 of 94 (1127 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jesse Noller <jnoller [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 7:01 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve [at] pearwood>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:14:59 am Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> At the very least, I believe, any moratorium should have a clear end
>>>> date. A clear end date will be a powerful counter to the impression
>>>> that Python the language is moribund. It says, this is an exceptional
>>>> pause, not a permanent halt.
>>>
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
>>> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
>>> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
>>>
>>> 3.2 is a special case: as an even-numbered release, it would normally
>>> allow new features, but in recognition of the special nature of the 2.x
>>> to 3.1/3.2 migration, no new language features will be allowed.
>>>
>>> Advantages:
>>>
>>> * It slows down changes to the language while still allowing
>>> sufficiently high-standard new features.
>>>
>>> * Alternate implementations have a stable language version to aim for.
>>> Assuming point releases come ever 12-18 months, that stable language
>>> version will last 2-3 years.
>>>
>>> * It doesn't have the psychological baggage of an unconditional ban on
>>> new features for the indefinite future. It gives a fixed, known
>>> schedule for when new features will be permitted, without the
>>> uncertainty of "at the BDFL's pleasure".
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Steven D'Aprano
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I view a definite end point as a definite plus.
>>
>> Geremy Condra
>>
>
> There is a time outlined in the pep.
>

I quote:

"This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."

Emphasis mine.

Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2. If
possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.

Geremy Condra
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

guido at python

Nov 8, 2009, 6:35 PM

Post #87 of 94 (1158 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve [at] pearwood> wrote:
> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.

Oh no, not the eve/odd numbering scheme. Nobody will be able to
remember which is which.

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

guido at python

Nov 8, 2009, 6:41 PM

Post #88 of 94 (1128 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
> I quote:
>
> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>
> Emphasis mine.

I since added this:

"""In particular,
the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months
after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once
again include language changes."""

> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2.

My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell
what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with
defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)).
I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2
has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1.

> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.

They haven't changed my mind.

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

scott+python-dev at scottdial

Nov 8, 2009, 6:57 PM

Post #89 of 94 (1129 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve [at] pearwood> wrote:
>> No new language features in odd-numbered point releases (3.3, 3.5, ...).
>> Even-numbered point releases (3.4, 3.6, ...) may include new language
>> features provided they meet the usual standards for new features.
>
> Oh no, not the eve/odd numbering scheme. Nobody will be able to
> remember which is which.
>

In this case, does it really matter? Usually the confusion is with
stable/unstable being even/odd or odd/even, but in this case the options
are stable/stable (it just happens that certain pairwise versions are
related).

--
Scott Dial
scott [at] scottdial
scodial [at] cs
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

debatem1 at gmail

Nov 8, 2009, 7:50 PM

Post #90 of 94 (1125 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido [at] python> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> I quote:
>>
>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
>> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>>
>> Emphasis mine.
>
> I since added this:
>
> """In particular,
> the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months
> after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once
> again include language changes."""
>
>> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2.
>
> My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell
> what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with
> defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)).
> I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2
> has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you spell out what you would
consider grounds for a future extension?

>> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.
>
> They haven't changed my mind.

Ok, but the fact that you (or Steven) hold a particular set of beliefs
is a singularly unconvincing argument. Could you explain why you
don't agree, if only for the record?

Geremy Condra
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

amk at amk

Nov 9, 2009, 6:16 AM

Post #91 of 94 (1146 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.

It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
the 2.7 "What's New", or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?

--amk
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

brett at python

Nov 9, 2009, 9:12 AM

Post #92 of 94 (1109 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido [at] python> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> I quote:
>>>
>>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
>>> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>>>
>>> Emphasis mine.
>>
>> I since added this:
>>
>> """In particular,
>> the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months
>> after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once
>> again include language changes."""
>>
>>> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2.
>>
>> My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell
>> what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with
>> defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)).
>> I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2
>> has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1.
>
> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you spell out what you would
> consider grounds for a future extension?
>

We feel it's necessary as a group or Guido does, simple as that. You
can't plan it since it's over two years away. If the time comes and
people feel the moratorium has been beneficial and should go longer,
we will extend it. It will most likely be for the same reasons we
started it.

>>> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.
>>
>> They haven't changed my mind.
>
> Ok, but the fact that you (or Steven) hold a particular set of beliefs
> is a singularly unconvincing argument.

I disagree. Guido is the BDFL so his set of beliefs is enough unless
faced with a huge number of people disagreeing. That has not occurred
on this topic.

>Could you explain why you
> don't agree, if only for the record?

Enough happens on python-dev based on gut feeling that there isn't a
need. If we had to spell out objections to every email we received
while discussing a PEP, threads would never end. Heck, I think this
PEP discussion as gone on long enough and that Guido could pronounce
at this point.

-Brett
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

guido at python

Nov 9, 2009, 9:56 AM

Post #93 of 94 (1101 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

Thanks Brett. I've moved the moratorium PEP to Status: Accepted. I've
added the words about inclusion of 3.2 and exclusion of 3.3 (which
were eaten by a svn conflict when I previously tried to add them) and
added a section to th end stating that an extension will require
another PEP.

--Guido

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Brett Cannon <brett [at] python> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido [at] python> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>> I quote:
>>>>
>>>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>>>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
>>>> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>>>>
>>>> Emphasis mine.
>>>
>>> I since added this:
>>>
>>> """In particular,
>>> the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months
>>> after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once
>>> again include language changes."""
>>>
>>>> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2.
>>>
>>> My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell
>>> what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with
>>> defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)).
>>> I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2
>>> has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you spell out what you would
>> consider grounds for a future extension?
>>
>
> We feel it's necessary as a group or Guido does, simple as that. You
> can't plan it since it's over two years away. If the time comes and
> people feel the moratorium has been beneficial and should go longer,
> we will extend it. It will most likely be for the same reasons we
> started it.
>
>>>> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.
>>>
>>> They haven't changed my mind.
>>
>> Ok, but the fact that you (or Steven) hold a particular set of beliefs
>> is a singularly unconvincing argument.
>
> I disagree. Guido is the BDFL so his set of beliefs is enough unless
> faced with a huge number of people disagreeing. That has not occurred
> on this topic.
>
>>Could you explain why you
>> don't agree, if only for the record?
>
> Enough happens on python-dev based on gut feeling that there isn't a
> need. If we had to spell out objections to every email we received
> while discussing a PEP, threads would never end. Heck, I think this
> PEP discussion as gone on long enough and that Guido could pronounce
> at this point.
>
> -Brett
>

--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

g.brandl at gmx

Nov 9, 2009, 11:51 AM

Post #94 of 94 (1127 views)
Permalink

Re: PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium [In reply to]

A.M. Kuchling schrieb:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 10:27:46PM +0100, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Good point, I'll make that change if AMK agrees.
>
> It's certainly fine with me. Do we want to only make that change to
> the 2.7 "What's New", or should we also do it for the 2.6 one?

Why not for 2.6 as well, it's an immediate benefit, especially since the
list of deprecations in 2.6 is huge.

Georg

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev [at] python
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/list-python-dev%40lists.gossamer-threads.com

1 2 3 4

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads