[Python-Dev] If you thought there were too many PEPs...

[Thomas Wouters]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 05:57:42AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Greg Ward]
> > ...yow: the Perl community is really going overboard in proposing
> > enhancements:
> > ...
> >    4. http://dev.perl.org/rfc/

> Following that URL is highly recommended!

Indeed. Thanx for pointing it out again (and Greg, too), I've had a barrel
of laughs (and good impressions, both) already :)

> I was surprised by how often Python gets mentioned, and somtimes by how
> confusedly.

Well, 'python' is mentioned explicitly 12 times, in 7 different RFCs.
There'll be some implicit ones, of course, but it's not as much as I would
have expected, based on howmany times I hear my perl-hugging colleague
comment on how cool a particular Python feature is ;)

> For example, in the Perl Coroutines RFC:
> 
>     Unlike coroutines as defined by Knuth, and implemented in laguages
>     such as Simula or Python, perl does not have an explicit "resume"
>     call for invoking coroutines.
> 
> Mistake -- or Guido's time machine <wink>?

Neither. Someone elses time machine, as the URL given in the references
section shows: they're not talking about coroutines in the core, but as
'addon'. And not necessarily as stackless, either, there are a couple of
implementations.

(Other than that I don't like the Perl coroutine proposal: I think
single process coroutines make a lot more sense, though I can see why they
are arguing for such a 'i/o-based' model.)

My personal favorite, up to now, is RFC 28: Perl should stay Perl. Anyone
upset by the new print statement should definately read it ;) The other RFCs
going "don't change *that*" are good too, showing that not everyone is
losing themselves in wishes ;)

-- 
Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!