pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[Arthur Siegel]

Terry writes: 
>>I am not horrified, however, I do have two objections:

>>1. We will have two styles of Python to read: with and 
>>without pass. I expect this would be confusing, especially 
>>since one >>would not know
>>for sure until one sees a pass.

Phil responds:

>I don't see that as a serious problem. We already have as many 
>styles of python as there are python programmers. For example, I 
>have never used lambda. As another example, some people prefer short
>variable names and others long ones, t versus totalCount. Etc.

This, under my interpretation, was exactly the PEP285 problem.
Can't understand why we would add alternative ways of accomplishing
things that are already fully accomplishable, without a showing of
true enhancement - performance, etc. 

Because there *is* a clear downside, IMO, to creating too many
ways to accomplish the same thing - especially to those new
to the language, and more particularly to those new to programming.

And on the other hand, I can't see any reason to make changes to
the syntax, for the *benefit* of the newbie.  There is little, let's
say, of 1.5.2 that cannot be grasped  by anyone undertaking a serious
enough effort to absorb available docs, reference materials, tutorials 
and sample code. 

Unfortunately I don't think the same can be said of 2.2, for example.

But presumably things will stabilize at some point again, and 
that statement will again be true.


Art