pre-PEP for optional 'pass'

[Guido van Rossum]

> 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...

In this particular case, it seems to me that all the reasons to reject
this idea have already been rehashed ad infinitum in the newsgroup.
If Phil still wants to write the PEP, that's fine, but he should then
be prepared to record the rejection reasons, even if he disagrees with
them.

> 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.

That's a bug in the PEP process.  Rejected PEPs *should* have a reason
for rejection, and the authors of those PEPs should be reminded of
their responsibility.

> Which _is_ a waste of effort, IMO.

Half true.  It still tells people not to try proposing the same idea
again.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)