PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[John Roth]

"Alex Martelli" <aleax at aleax.it> wrote in message
news:IDAq8.45703$pT1.1295831 at news1.tin.it...
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> writes:
> >> > I am opposed to the addition of the new proposed type on the
grounds
> >> > that it will make Python harder to teach both to people who have
never
> >> > programmed before and to people who _have_.
> >>
> >> At first glance, I was marginally in favor of this PEP.  After
> >> reading Alex Martelli's arguments, I was marginally opposed to
> >> it.  I think that Laura's comments are *very* convincing, and I'm
> >> now fairly solidly opposed to it.  Well said, Laura.
> >
> > I agree, I missed Laura's post earlier but it's terrific.
>
> Full agreement.  But not from Guido, who dubs it an "over-long FUD
> piece" -- all others who commented on Laura's post, whether they
> agreed with it or not, seemed to appreciate its worth.  I guess that
> tells us something about how worthwhile it is to spend hours studying
> and reflecting in depth upon issues, and composing beautiful posts
> on the subject, when arguments are requested: the message is quite
> clear, "if you don't agree with what he's already decided to do,
> don't bother, you'll only peeve him off".  Nice PR exercise...;-).

Maybe my post in response didn't propagate? As I said in that
post, the root of her problem is a poorly chosen name for the
function. If she paid attention to constructing the name properly,
it would come out as something like "numberOfLeapDays"
rather than "isLeapYear", and there would be **no**
instructional issue.

John Roth
>
> Oh well.
>
>
> Alex
>