4 ms·

The PEP has been withdrawn based on the poll results, which mostly echo the comments here: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-760-no-more-bare-excepts/67182/83 ht

by kej 2y ago

The PEP has been withdrawn based on the poll results, which mostly echo the comments here: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-760-no-more-bare-excepts/67182/83 https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-760-no-more-bare-excepts/67... >Hi everyone! >Thanks a lot for voicing your opinions and concerns! After reading carefully all the arguments, the poll and the different positions we have decided that the best course of action is to withdraw the PEP as there is clear agreement that the breakage doesn’t justify the benefits here. >Thanks a lot!

zahlman 2y ago
What bothers me more on a meta level is that some people in the community are apparently empowered to just write PEPs on a whim that will be quickly withdrawn, whereas most people will be forced to fight through long discussion threads before finding a sponsor willing to co-sign to a PEP (if that ever happens). The "Ideas" section of the forum is probably the least pleasant to use; and for all the controversial new stuff that gets added, the dev team is stunningly conservative WRT ideas that come from outside. In particular, they'll commonly tell you to demonstrate your feature as a third-party package on PyPI first, then show that it gains popularity (i.e. you as a random developer are responsible for promoting your idea, not merely justifying it) - and if you succeed at that, they'll have the argument waiting for you that you already have a maintained, mature library that's perfectly capable of working on its own, so why would it need to become part of the language? "The standard library is where packages go to die", don't you know? BTW, they will also tell you these things if the nature of your idea makes it impossible - e.g., you propose to add a method to a builtin type; subtyping won't work, because part of the point is that literal values should get the functionality automatically.
dfhfg 2y ago
So, after wasting everyone's time they issue a bureaucratic power talk statement that the casual reader will interpret as "nice". They certainly do know how to play mostly socially incompetent followers. (These are the same people who humiliated Tim Peters and others.)

by kej 2y ago

zahlman 2y ago

What bothers me more on a meta level is that some people in the community are apparently empowered to just write PEPs on a whim that will be quickly withdrawn, whereas most people will be forced to fight through long discussion threads before finding a sponsor willing to co-sign to a PEP (if that ever happens). The "Ideas" section of the forum is probably the least pleasant to use; and for all the controversial new stuff that gets added, the dev team is stunningly conservative WRT ideas that come from outside. In particular, they'll commonly tell you to demonstrate your feature as a third-party package on PyPI first, then show that it gains popularity (i.e. you as a random developer are responsible for promoting your idea, not merely justifying it) - and if you succeed at that, they'll have the argument waiting for you that you already have a maintained, mature library that's perfectly capable of working on its own, so why would it need to become part of the language? "The standard library is where packages go to die", don't you know? BTW, they will also tell you these things if the nature of your idea makes it impossible - e.g., you propose to add a method to a builtin type; subtyping won't work, because part of the point is that literal values should get the functionality automatically.

dfhfg 2y ago

So, after wasting everyone's time they issue a bureaucratic power talk statement that the casual reader will interpret as "nice". They certainly do know how to play mostly socially incompetent followers. (These are the same people who humiliated Tim Peters and others.)