PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[John Baxter]

In article <mailman.1018205719.28293.python-list at python.org>,
 Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> wrote:

> In the case of PEP 285, Guido asked for community advice on 8 specific
> issues, one of which was "Should this PEP be accepted?".  He didn't find the
> contra arguments to that one persuasive.

I see two fallacies repeated regularly, in computer contexts and 
othewise; in Usenet and in other venues (eg Newspaper letters columns).

1.  "They" didn't do it the way I would have done it; therefore it was 
done incorrectly.
  I fell into that one myself in the integer division 
"discussion"...what I finally took away from that--after making far too 
much noise--was learning that indeed dynamic typing means some ideas 
which are perfectly reasonable in a static typed environment (eg int / 
int --> int) aren't reasonable in the presence of dynamic typing 
(continuing the example...because the output varies "too much" depending 
on the input).

2.  I made a wonderously-beautiful suggestion, and they didn't 
gratefully pick it up and use it, therefore I was ignored.
  Well, *possibly* I was ignored.  Possibly--more likely--my suggestion 
didn't stand up to close inspection (eg, in the political arena, 
specialized to the US, there is a Federal regulation which clearly 
prevents doing what I suggested).  And of course, possibly my suggestion 
was the best idea and "they" liked it but it didn't fit some larger 
agenda (in the political arena, again, perhaps it conflicted with 
rewarding friends and being re-elected).

With regard to PEP 285...I thought "oh well, a Boolean type will be 
added...Guido will do it such that it doesn't hurt me enough to worry 
about...it might even help sometime."  Given that, I read some of 
Guido's postings and samples of others, and concluded that indeed I 
didn't need to worry about it.