ACCEPTED: PEP 285

[Hans Nowak]

Arthur Siegel wrote:

> Guido asks "should the PEP be accepted"?
> 
> Many folks reacted that - no, it is unnecessary and
> poorly timed and took the time to elaborate as intelligently
> and thoroughly as they could the basis for that conclusion.
> 
> Only to find that the question Guido was *really* asking was
> whether anyone saw a *killer* reason not to adopt.
> 
> Unnecessary and poorly timed may well be the right answer
> but is not a  *killer* reason. You lose.
> 
> The fact as to who's football we happening to be playing
> with now being a little shoved in our face.  Guido seemed
> willing to accept the sense of the community, along as the
> community told him what he wanted to hear. When
> it didn't, he simply retroactively rephrased his question.

I don't see it that way.

- Guido wants to add a boolean to Python. 
- Now, he could have just shoved it down our collective
throat, without asking anyone's opinion. But instead,
he decides to write a PEP, and asks what people think
of it. (First in python-dev, later in c.l.py.)
- Apparently, none of the arguments against the boolean
were convincing to him, at least not enough to reject
the PEP. (People may argue, sure he won't reject it,
it's his own PEP... but if I'm not mistaken, he has
rejected his own PEP before.)
- There is a lot of talk about the PEP in the newsgroup,
but seeing that this most likely won't yield any
new reasons not to accept the PEP, Guido decides to
tie the knot and use his status as BDFL. PEP accepted.

Doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

-- 
Hans (base64.decodestring('d3VybXlAZWFydGhsaW5rLm5ldA==')) 
# decode for email address ;-)
The Pythonic Quarter:: http://www.awaretek.com/nowak/