PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Paul Rubin]

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> writes:
> I'm reading (at least skimming) everything, but the more I read the
> reactions, the more I believe that this is just the response I have to
> expect for *every* change to the language I propose, and the more I'm
> tempted to follow my gut instincts.  Long ago (right after lambda :-)
> I learned to say "no" to proposals that didn't feel right to me, even
> if I couldn't express very clearly why.

I think if you want to take the experience from Python and use it to
redesign the language, that's fine, it's always possible to think of
improvements to put into a successor language no matter how good
the original is.

Introducing all these gradual changes in Python is pretty painful
though.  Bool is one of those features that might have been ok if it
was present from the beginning.  Adding it now just creates another
speed bump for programmers to get used to, and program maintainers to
deal with, and another big hassle for users who have to once again
download a new Python release as programs start using the new
features.

> I think it's time I learn to say "yes" even if the community doesn't
> see the light yet.

I don't think it's appropriate to introduce a change just because
it's a good idea ("good" means > 0, like +0 or +1).  For something
as pervasive as this, it should be +3 or better.  It's ok to say
no to good ideas as well as to bad ones.

I haven't followed this thread too much since Alex's initial long post
on it, which is the best post on the thread that I've seen and made me
feel like not a lot more needed to be said about the subject.  So I
hope you'll take a look at that post if you haven't yet.