PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Tim Peters]

[Arthur Siegel]
> ...
> Efforts to further gloss Python's air of simplicity are going
> too, too far.

The PEP doesn't mention simplicity, except perhaps indirectly and partially
via its claim that the existence of a standard, distinguishable true/false
type could make life easier for a particular class of external library
(which has been confirmed by people maintaining such libraries).

> We've accomplished that Python can be taught while
> hiding the existence of numeric types.
>
> If the "teaching community" demands more of Python - I do suspect Guido
> faces pressures - let them find something better for their purposes.

AFAIK, this PEP hasn't even been mentioned on the Edu-SIG.  It certainly
didn't come from the teaching community; historically, Barry Warsaw has been
the biggest advocate of adding a true/false type, and most educators would
almost certainly object to the "impurity" of this proposal.  The little
Guido said about teaching in the PEP comes from his own experience
introducing to Python to others; that should be clear from the phrasing
alone:

    When showing people comparison operators etc. in the interactive
    shell, I think this is a bit ugly:

All of that part of the PEP was written in the first person.

> Of course they won't.
>
> Its called calling a bluff.

AFAICT, "they" aren't even aware of this PEP.  If they were, there would be
a lot more complaints about mixing bools with ints.