Status of PEPs?

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Reichelt <XXNOSPAMXX at gibts.net> writes:

    Thomas> Thank you for your explanation. What I don't understand,
    Thomas> though, is that the PEPs for which an implementation
    Thomas> exists aren't discussed further, but are just lying around
    Thomas> in a corner, though there is a significant advantage in
    Thomas> the PEP's proposal. I understand that the introduction of
    Thomas> a new keyword is

Even if something has a significant advantage, it's might not be
significant enough to warrant bloating the language. The cost of
implementing a feature is trivial compared to the cost of increased
language complexity. In that way python is different from perl or
ruby, where everything that someone bothers to provide a patch for
gets included.

    Thomas> It is clear that most of the proposed syntactic
    Thomas> enhancements can be rebuilt with the existing language,
    Thomas> but sometimes only with code duplication or clumsy
    Thomas> constructs.

Many features are only attractive because some other language has it,
and people mistakenly believe that python should have it too. do-while
is an example of a worthless feature that people think they want, but
that really adds nothing to


while 1:
  do stuff
  if condition:
    break


-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb