On 1/23/2010 12:17 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
Terry Reedy said:
'''
If you try writing a full patch, as I believe someone did, or at least
a
prototype thereof, when the idea was discussed, you might have a
better
idea of what the tradeoffs are and why it was rejected.
'''
I have to run, but tomorrow I will try to dig through python-dev
archives and find the patch. If anybody has hints on where to look
for it (anybody remember the author, for example?), it would be much
appreciated.
The approach you outlined in your other response to me is, I believe,
what was considered, investigated, and then rejected (by Guido, with
agreement). The discussion may have been on the now-closed and
(misspelled) pyk3 (?), or maybe on python-ideas, but my memory is more
likely the former. I am sure that Raymond H. was involved also.
If the patch looks simple, I will try to pitch the idea that its time
has come. Now that the specification of the language itself is
frozen, I think there might be more room for improving
implementations. Also, I might be able to make the argument that
tradeoffs of memory vs. CPU vs. code complexity have different forces
in the 2010s.
I am not opposed to a possible change, just hasty, ill-informed
criticism. If there is not a PEP on this issue, it would be good to have
one that recorded the proposal and the pros and cons, regardless of the
outcome, so there would be something to refer people to. If that had
been already done, it would have shortened this thread considerably.
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
