18 ms·
> Exactly half of all responders, forming nearly 90% of the above majority, are fine with that form being PEP 634. That half includes those who voted for "acce
by pansa2 6y ago
> Exactly half of all responders, forming nearly 90% of the above majority, are fine with that form being PEP 634.
That half includes those who voted for "accept 634 + 640" or "accept 634 + 642", whom I doubt are entirely happy with the decision to accept PEP 634 and reject 640 & 642.
- magnusmundus 6y agoMy point was that you cannot claim "65% of responders opposed this particular proposal". I understand, they're possibly not entirely happy. But the poll is flawed that way: "accept 634" should not mean "reject 640 & 642". I presented my reading as an alternative, but the poll isn't substantive. That said, I interpret this part: > PEP 642’s proposed syntax does not seem like the right way to solve the jagged edges in PEP 634’s syntax to mean that this is merely an initial spec. Those unhappy with the syntax can avoid using it for now, there are no breaking changes. It took a couple iterations to refine the async syntax too, remember, and (IMHO) we arrived at a clean-enough version of it. I have hope!