[Python-Dev] If you thought there were too many PEPs... (original) (raw)

Thomas Wouters thomas@xs4all.net
Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:42:28 +0200

On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 05:57:42AM -0400, Tim Peters wrote:

[Greg Ward] > ...yow: the Perl community is really going overboard in proposing > enhancements: > ... > 4. http://dev.perl.org/rfc/

Following that URL is highly recommended!

Indeed. Thanx for pointing it out again (and Greg, too), I've had a barrel of laughs (and good impressions, both) already :)

I was surprised by how often Python gets mentioned, and somtimes by how confusedly.

Well, 'python' is mentioned explicitly 12 times, in 7 different RFCs. There'll be some implicit ones, of course, but it's not as much as I would have expected, based on howmany times I hear my perl-hugging colleague comment on how cool a particular Python feature is ;)

For example, in the Perl Coroutines RFC:

Unlike coroutines as defined by Knuth, and implemented in laguages such as Simula or Python, perl does not have an explicit "resume" call for invoking coroutines. Mistake -- or Guido's time machine ?

Neither. Someone elses time machine, as the URL given in the references section shows: they're not talking about coroutines in the core, but as 'addon'. And not necessarily as stackless, either, there are a couple of implementations.

(Other than that I don't like the Perl coroutine proposal: I think single process coroutines make a lot more sense, though I can see why they are arguing for such a 'i/o-based' model.)

My personal favorite, up to now, is RFC 28: Perl should stay Perl. Anyone upset by the new print statement should definately read it ;) The other RFCs going "don't change that" are good too, showing that not everyone is losing themselves in wishes ;)

-- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net>

Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!