pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[Andrew MacIntyre]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Guido van Rossum wrote:

> phil hunt wrote:
>
> > I wish to make the pas startement optional. That is, in any Python
> > program where there is a pass it can be left out and the meaning of
> > the program is unchanged.
>
> I expect I may be too late here, but I'd like to point out that I
> will never accept such a proposal, so you can stop wasting your time.
> I've seen your arguments, and they don't convince me.  Sorry. :-)

That is your prerogative.  However I understood one of the roles of PEPs
was that when rejected, they recorded for posterity your reasons for
rejecting them.  Such records would help quench the recurring bouts of
foaming-at-the-mouth featuritis that clogs c.l.py/python-list from time to
time, as the afflicted could be directed to the PEP - it may not cure
them, but it would tell them why they were beyond help...

Alas several rejected PEPs (don't recall which off the top of my head)
have just been recorded as "rejected" with no rationale for rejection.

Which _is_ a waste of effort, IMO.

--
Andrew I MacIntyre                     "These thoughts are mine alone..."
E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au  | Snail: PO Box 370
        andymac at pcug.org.au            |        Belconnen  ACT  2616
Web:    http://www.andymac.org/        |        Australia