On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:14:00 +0100 Rob Cliffe via Python-Dev <python-dev@python.org> wrote: > Whoa! > > I have an uneasy feeling about this PEP. > > AFAIK the usual procedure for adding a new feature to Python is: > An idea is raised and attracts some support. > Someone sufficiently motivated writes a PEP. > The PEP is thoroughly discussed. > Eventually a consensus (or at least an "agree to differ" stalemate) > is reached. > The PEP is accepted (if it is). > (Then and only then) Someone works on the implementation. > etc. > > However, PEP 622 only seems to have been presented to the Python > community only *after* a well-developed (if not finalised) > implementation was built. A fait accompli.
I think what you describe as "the usual procedure" isn't as usual as you think. For example, when I wrote PEP 442 (Safe object finalization), I don't remember a preliminary round of raising support for the idea. I had that idea in mind after repeated frustration with the previous finalization semantics, attempted writing an implementation which ended up functional, and then wrote a PEP from it. That said, PEP 622 is a much broader PEP adding a whole new syntactical feature with unusual semantics attached to it, so it's conceivable to be more cautious with the discussion process. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/IGDMVG6N5U4I76YH6SUWGS5Q4XDE3OT6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
