[Python-Dev] PEP 3003 - Python Language Moratorium

[Guido van Rossum]

Thanks Brett.  I've moved the moratorium PEP to Status: Accepted. I've
added the words about inclusion of 3.2 and exclusion of 3.3 (which
were eaten by a svn conflict when I previously tried to add them) and
added a section to th end stating that an extension will require
another PEP.

--Guido

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 19:50, geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I quote:
>>>>
>>>> "This PEP proposes a temporary moratorium (suspension) of all changes
>>>> to the Python language syntax, semantics, and built-ins for a period
>>>> of *at least two years* from the release of Python 3.1."
>>>>
>>>> Emphasis mine.
>>>
>>> I since added this:
>>>
>>> """In particular,
>>> the moratorium would include Python 3.2 (to be released 18-24 months
>>> after 3.1) but (unless explicitly extended) allow Python 3.3 to once
>>> again include language changes."""
>>>
>>>> Like I say, a definite end point would be much preferred to n > 2.
>>>
>>> My time machine doesn't work very well in the future. So I can't tell
>>> what we'll find necessary 2 years from now. But I would be fine with
>>> defining the time limit to be max(time(3.1) + 2 years, time(3.2)).
>>> I.e. the moratorium (unless explicitly extended) ends as soon as 3.2
>>> has been released *and* at least 2 years have passed since 3.1.
>>
>> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you spell out what you would
>> consider grounds for a future extension?
>>
>
> We feel it's necessary as a group or Guido does, simple as that. You
> can't plan it since it's over two years away. If the time comes and
> people feel the moratorium has been beneficial and should go longer,
> we will extend it. It will most likely be for the same reasons we
> started it.
>
>>>> If possible, I'd also like to hear some of Steven's other points addressed.
>>>
>>> They haven't changed my mind.
>>
>> Ok, but the fact that you (or Steven) hold a particular set of beliefs
>> is a singularly unconvincing argument.
>
> I disagree. Guido is the BDFL so his set of beliefs is enough unless
> faced with a huge number of people disagreeing. That has not occurred
> on this topic.
>
>>Could you explain why you
>> don't agree, if only for the record?
>
> Enough happens on python-dev based on gut feeling that there isn't a
> need. If we had to spell out objections to every email we received
> while discussing a PEP, threads would never end. Heck, I think this
> PEP discussion as gone on long enough and that Guido could pronounce
> at this point.
>
> -Brett
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)