4 ms·

They explicitly describe the PEP as evil, is there a tradition in the Python community for having obviously terrible PEPs, just to document the reasons for not

They explicitly describe the PEP as evil, is there a tradition in the Python community for having obviously terrible PEPs, just to document the reasons for not doing something? Because that would make this a lot more understandable.

arp242 2y ago
If it's not a serious proposal then that's even worse, because there's a long discussion on that thread. So this non-serious proposal is just wasting people's time.
eesmith 2y ago
There is PEP 666. https://peps.python.org/pep-0666/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0666/ > I figure if I make this PEP, we can then ask Guido to quickly reject it, and then when this argument next starts up again, we can say ‘Guido isn’t changing things to suit the tab-haters or the only-tabbers, so this conversation is a waste of time.’ ... > This proposal, if accepted, will probably mean a heck of a lot of work for somebody. But since I don’t want it accepted, I don’t care. I don't know if there are others.
veggieroll 2y ago
Genius-level risk taking
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Kinda yah, I mean, it seems like it is getting a strong negative response based on the poll.
jjice 2y ago
This was on April Fool's Day, but the roman numeral constants PEP always gives me a laugh https://peps.python.org/pep-0313/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0313/
- bee_rider 2y ago
  > Any literal composed entirely of M, D, C, L, X, V and I characters that does not follow this format will raise a syntax error, because explicit is better than implicit. Good as a reminder that rules like “explicit is better than implicit” should not be followed all the way to the most absurd possible conclusions.
sundarurfriend 2y ago
"the evil twin of PEP 758: Allow `except` and `except*` expressions without parentheses" They're using "evil twin" in the sense of "it's closely related to 758, but goes in the opposite direction to it".

arp242 2y ago

If it's not a serious proposal then that's even worse, because there's a long discussion on that thread. So this non-serious proposal is just wasting people's time.

eesmith 2y ago

There is PEP 666. https://peps.python.org/pep-0666/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0666/ > I figure if I make this PEP, we can then ask Guido to quickly reject it, and then when this argument next starts up again, we can say ‘Guido isn’t changing things to suit the tab-haters or the only-tabbers, so this conversation is a waste of time.’ ... > This proposal, if accepted, will probably mean a heck of a lot of work for somebody. But since I don’t want it accepted, I don’t care. I don't know if there are others.

veggieroll 2y ago

Genius-level risk taking

bee_rider 2y ago
Kinda yah, I mean, it seems like it is getting a strong negative response based on the poll.

jjice 2y ago

This was on April Fool's Day, but the roman numeral constants PEP always gives me a laugh https://peps.python.org/pep-0313/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0313/

bee_rider 2y ago
> Any literal composed entirely of M, D, C, L, X, V and I characters that does not follow this format will raise a syntax error, because explicit is better than implicit. Good as a reminder that rules like “explicit is better than implicit” should not be followed all the way to the most absurd possible conclusions.

sundarurfriend 2y ago

"the evil twin of PEP 758: Allow `except` and `except*` expressions without parentheses" They're using "evil twin" in the sense of "it's closely related to 758, but goes in the opposite direction to it".