On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@rece.vub.ac.be> wrote: > On 07/19/2015 02:21 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gregory Ewing >> <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > >>> Personally I'd be fine with your initial syntax, but >>> something else might be needed to get it past Guido. >>> He didn't like my 'cocall f()' construct in PEP 3152, >>> which is syntactically isomorphic to 'transfer f()'. >> >> Maybe it should get written up and rejected, then, to be something to >> point to any time anyone advocates TCO. > > Those who remember the history of pep 308 will not find > that a strong deterrent.
It doesn't have to be a deterrent. It just has to say "Here's all the arguments we came up with in 2015, so find answers to those if you want to reopen the debate". It's effectively a way of rapidly onboarding the conclusions from a lengthy discussion, much more easily than pointing someone to the archive and expecting him/her to read through it all. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
