PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Steve Holden]

"Cliff Wells" <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1018049233.13141.python-list at python.org...
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:09:41 -0500
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
> Steve, please be a bit more careful.  Your post sort of made it look like
> you were responding to things *I* had said (which I've snipped here) which
> were in fact said by John Roth.  I was even confused for a second =)
>
Mea culpa. I'll be more careful.

> [snip]
>
[snip snip]
>
> > > Frankly Guido's dismissal of Laura's arguments as FUD was not only a
> bit
> > > rude, but IMHO a bit short-sighted as well (given the fact that
> someday,
> > > there may be a desire for a real boolean type).  Maybe Tim Peters has
> > > borrowed his time-machine and not returned it ;)
> > >
> > However it happened, it left me feeling a little embarrassed that I had
> > originally defended Guido's inegrity and suggested that despite his
> > authorship the PEP's acceptance was not a foregone conclusion. I hope I
> > wasn't wrong, but that's not how it looks right now. Oh well.
>
> While I disagree with Guido's decision, I don't really think it has
> anything to do with his integrity (although it certainly could give that
> appearance).  I was fairly irritated at how this change went about (enough
> to contact Guido personally about it) and despite not reaching agreement
on
> the decision, I do feel certain that the issue was properly considered on
> his part and that he simply came to a different conclusion than many
others
> (myself included).
>
I don't think it has anything to do with his integrity either, but somebody
did suggest that the PEP was a foregone conclusion, and I tried to counter
that argument.

regards
 Steve