Comment on draft PEP for deprecating six builtins

[James J. Besemer]

Brian Quinlan wrote:

> > Huh? The "core" language wouldn't be measurably shrunk by this
> proposal
> > fella. Your rationale is built on air. Show us some genuine
> _advantage_
> > that is worth the huge _cost_ in time and effort caused by your ill-
> > considered proposal. How about you and other PEP writers take some
> > responsibilities for your fantasies for once? You up to helping
> thousands
> > rewrite their code? I thought not.
>
> Why the hostility?

I don't interpret this strongly worded and slightly sarcastic critique to
be hostile.

If you call this hostile I don't think you know the meaning of the word.

> I think that every PEP is a good one. Even if the PEP is ultimately
> rejected, it promotes thought about some aspect of the language. Taking
> responsibility sounds like stifling discussion to me.

And I don't see how his offering a strong opinion stiffles discussion.

I happen to agree with just about everything he said.

This PEP is angles in the clouds stuff.  A lot of work for everybody and
virtually zero practical benefit to anybody.

Regards

--jb

--
James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com