What has PEP 285 done to us?

[Aahz]

In article <mailman.1018366940.13473.python-list at python.org>,
Laura Creighton  <lac at strakt.com> wrote:
>
>Boris' phrasing indicates that I was 'trying to make a point' as if
>this was some sort of ego-driven competition between myself and Guido
>with some sort of pay-off in terms of whether the PEP passes, or
>whether more big names on comp.lang.python come out in favour of me
>than Guido or some other piece of nonsense.  I did not want this.
>Boris has revealed a flaw in our process, because that he took it that
>way means that the PEP process is being perceived as an ego-game.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the stridency you exhibited in this
thread (to my startlement) made me feel a bit that you *were* trying to
score a point.  I'm not talking about your initial long post, but
subsequent ones.

>This _really_ stinks, people.  I trusted Guido to be able to take off his
>'I am an implementor and I just implemented a cool new feature' hat
>and put on his 'I am a langauge designer, and I am now looking at the
>language implications' hat.  This trust we must have in Guido or else
>he will not be able to launch his own new features into Python.  This
>is the faith we must have or else we think that we ONLY GOT LUCKY
>in that Python is great.  

See?  You're implying here that Guido did *not* put on his "language
designer" hat, and in a rather subtle way, to boot.  You're
contradicting the very point you're trying to make by your use of
language.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"There are times when effort is important and necessary, but this should
not be taken as any kind of moral imperative."  --jdecker