PEP的状况？ [英] Status of PEPs?

问题描述

你好Python-Fans，


过去几个月，我学会了Python语言并非常高兴

。我现在已经为自己写了很多脚本，这个意见仍然存在，

不说，它变得更加密集。


最近我发现了PEP档案，现在我的问题是这样的：

有很多公开（考虑不周）的PEP会在语言中加入有用的功能，例如do-while声明，

开关语句或__main__函数。但是，这些提案中的大部分都是几年之久。虽然

提案似乎存在实施，但不会对它们采取任何措施。为什么会这样？什么必须是

为一个建议使其成为语言？


感谢您回答一个愚蠢的问题...
< br $> b $ b -

greetz tom

解决方案

" Thomas Reichelt" < XX ******** @ gibts.net>在消息中写道

新闻：2k ************ @ uni-berlin.de ...

Hello Python-Fans，

过去几个月，我学习了Python语言，非常满意它。我现在已经为自己写了很多脚本，这个意见仍然存在，
不是说，它变得更加密集。

最近我发现了PEP档案，现在我的问题是：<有很多开放（考虑不周）的PEP会将有用的功能合并到语言中，例如do-while语句，
switch语句或__main__函数。但是，这些
提案中的大多数都是几年之久。虽然
提案似乎存在实施，但不会采取任何措施。为什么会这样？为了使其成为语言的提议需要做什么？

感谢您回答一个愚蠢的问题......


It这不是一个特别愚蠢的问题。缺少的部分是

是有限数量的核心开发人员，你需要在Python Dev邮件列表中获得一个

的共识，这个

特别提案比其他

竞争提案更值得花时间。你还需要通过Guido。另外

请注意，在两种情况下你会添加关键字，

强加一个重要的向前兼容性问题，而

第三个有一个主要的非显而易见的问题。


你提到的提案都属于有用的，b $ b类别，但还有其他方法可以做到这一点工作，很好

接受，并且在开发时间或可理解性方面不是一个很大的负担。

$ b $换句话说，在保持Python简单的讨论中，

讨论中有一个重要的组成部分。人群。


换句话说，要将其中任何一个向前移动都需要提交

的完整实现，这将在当前的工作中使用

开发树，以及必要的文档

更改，彻底测试等等。也就是说，想要在Python中看到任何这些内容的人需要自己完成工作

。


一个好的这方面的例子是Facundo Batista在PEP 327（十进制算术）上完成的工作

。很长一段时间以来，人们普遍认为应该做一些关于

十进制算术的事情，但是直到他走上前去，它还是死了。

中心。现在看起来我们要为Python 2.4获取它，

因此我们可以获得一个可用的货币类型

Python 2.5（建筑物）小数型。）


John Roth


-
greetz tom

" Thomas Reichelt" < XX ******** @ gibts.net>在消息中写道

新闻：2k ************ @ uni-berlin.de ...

Hello Python-Fans，有很多开放（考虑不周）的PEP会将有用的功能纳入语言，例如-while语句，
switch语句或__main__函数。但是，这些
提案中的大多数都是几年之久。虽然
提案似乎存在实施，但不会采取任何措施。为什么会这样？为了使其成为语言的提议必须做什么？

最后一个问题：最初的一个PEP讨论了PEP批准

流程。


上一个问题：最后一步是GvR的批准，我认为，这需要

a请求一个/不决定，PEP编写者可能不会在他们期待一个人的时候打扰他们，至少在当前时间。我同意这是

对于没有阅读过几年来讨论

几年的新人没有帮助。


特里J. Reedy

John Roth写道：

" Thomas Reichelt" < XX ******** @ gibts.net>在消息中写道
新闻：2k ************ @ uni-berlin.de ...

Hello Python-Fans，

。我现在为自己编写了很多脚本，这个意见已经停留了，更不用说了，它变得更加密集。

最近我发现了PEP档案，现在我的问题是：<有很多开放（考虑不周）的PEP会将有用的功能合并到语言中，例如do-while语句，
switch语句或__main__函数。但是，大多数这些

提案

已有几年的历史了。虽然
提案似乎存在实施，但不会采取任何措施。为什么会这样？为了使其成为语言的提议需要做些什么？

感谢您回答一个愚蠢的问题......

它这不是一个特别愚蠢的问题。缺少的部分是那里有数量有限的核心开发人员，你需要在他们的Python Dev邮件列表中得到一个
的共识，这个特别提案更值得他们的时间比其他竞争提案。你还需要通过Guido。另外请注意，在两种情况下，您将添加关键字，这会产生重要的向前兼容性问题，而第三种情况则存在非显而易见的重大问题。
开发人员时间或可理解性。

换句话说，在保持Python简单的讨论中，有一个重要的反对组件。换句话说，要推动其中的任何一个，需要提交一个完整的实现，该实现可以在当前的开发树中使用，以及必要的文档<改变，彻底测试等等。也就是说，想要在Python中看到任何这些内容的人需要自己完成这项工作。

这方面的一个很好的例子是Facundo Batista正在完成的工作<在PEP 327（十进制算术）上。很长一段时间以来，人们普遍认为应该对小数运算做些什么，但在他走上前，它就坐在死亡的中心。现在看起来我们将为Python 2.4获取它，
因此我们可以在Python 2.5中获得可用的货币类型（基于小数类型。）

感谢您的解释。但是，我不明白的是，实施存在的那些实际上没有进一步讨论，但只是躺在角落里的b $ b虽然PEP的建议有很大的优势。据我所知，引入一个新的关键字是一个很大的改变，但是Python有很好的能力可以弥补这个价值。（从__future__ ...）。


很明显，大多数提议的语法增强功能都可以使用现有语言重建

，但有时只能使用代码重复或

笨拙构造。


-

greetz tom

Hello Python-Fans,

A few months in the past, I learned the Python language and was very pleased
of it. I have now written many scripts for myself and this opinion stayed,
not to say, it became more intensive.

Recently I have discovered the PEP Archive, and my question is now this:
There are many open ("under consideration") PEPs that would incorporate
useful features into the language, such as the do-while statement, the
switch statement or the __main__ function. However, most of these proposals
are several years old. Though implementations seem to exist for the
proposals, no action is taken about them. Why is this so? What has to be
done for a proposal to make it into the language?

Thank you for answering a dumb question...

--
greetz tom

解决方案

"Thomas Reichelt" <XX********@gibts.net> wrote in message
news:2k************@uni-berlin.de...

Hello Python-Fans,

A few months in the past, I learned the Python language and was very pleased of it. I have now written many scripts for myself and this opinion stayed,
not to say, it became more intensive.

Recently I have discovered the PEP Archive, and my question is now this:
There are many open ("under consideration") PEPs that would incorporate
useful features into the language, such as the do-while statement, the
switch statement or the __main__ function. However, most of these proposals are several years old. Though implementations seem to exist for the
proposals, no action is taken about them. Why is this so? What has to be
done for a proposal to make it into the language?

Thank you for answering a dumb question...
It''s not a particularly dumb question. The missing piece is that there
are a limited number of core developers, and you need to get a
concensus among them on the Python Dev mailing list that this
particular proposal is more worthy of their time than other
competing proposals. You also need to get it past Guido. Also
note that in two cases you would be adding keywords, which
impose a significant forwards compatibility issue, while the
third has a major issue of non-obviousness.

The proposals you mention all fall into the category of "useful,
but there are other ways of doing that job that work, are well
accepted, and are not a significant burden in terms of either
developer time or comprehensibility."

Put another way, there was a significant against component in the
discussion from the "keep Python simple" crowd.

In other words, to move any of them forward would require submission
of a complete implementation that would work in the current
development tree, together with the necessary documentation
changes, thorough tests, and so on and so forth. That is, someone
who wants to see any of these in Python needs to do the work
themselves.

A good example of this is the work being done by Facundo Batista
on PEP 327 (Decimal Arithmetic). There''s been widespread
agreement for a long time that something should be done about
decimal arithmetic, but until he stepped forward, it sat on dead
center. Now it looks like we''re going to get it for Python 2.4,
so it may be possible for us to get a usable currency type in
Python 2.5 (building on the decimal type.)

John Roth


--
greetz tom

"Thomas Reichelt" <XX********@gibts.net> wrote in message
news:2k************@uni-berlin.de...

Hello Python-Fans,
Recently I have discovered the PEP Archive, and my question is now this:
There are many open ("under consideration") PEPs that would incorporate
useful features into the language, such as the do-while statement, the
switch statement or the __main__ function. However, most of these proposals are several years old. Though implementations seem to exist for the
proposals, no action is taken about them. Why is this so? What has to be
done for a proposal to make it into the language?

Last question first: one of the initial PEP discusses the PEP approval
process.

Previous question: last step is approval by GvR, which, I believe, requires
a request for a yea/nay decision, which PEP writers may not bother to do
when they expect a nay, at least at the current time. I agree that this is
not helpful for a newcomer who has not read the discussions here for
several years.

Terry J. Reedy

John Roth wrote:

"Thomas Reichelt" <XX********@gibts.net> wrote in message
news:2k************@uni-berlin.de...

Hello Python-Fans,

A few months in the past, I learned the Python language and was very

pleased

of it. I have now written many scripts for myself and this opinion
stayed, not to say, it became more intensive.

Recently I have discovered the PEP Archive, and my question is now this:
There are many open ("under consideration") PEPs that would incorporate
useful features into the language, such as the do-while statement, the
switch statement or the __main__ function. However, most of these

proposals

are several years old. Though implementations seem to exist for the
proposals, no action is taken about them. Why is this so? What has to be
done for a proposal to make it into the language?

Thank you for answering a dumb question...

It''s not a particularly dumb question. The missing piece is that there
are a limited number of core developers, and you need to get a
concensus among them on the Python Dev mailing list that this
particular proposal is more worthy of their time than other
competing proposals. You also need to get it past Guido. Also
note that in two cases you would be adding keywords, which
impose a significant forwards compatibility issue, while the
third has a major issue of non-obviousness.

The proposals you mention all fall into the category of "useful,
but there are other ways of doing that job that work, are well
accepted, and are not a significant burden in terms of either
developer time or comprehensibility."

Put another way, there was a significant against component in the
discussion from the "keep Python simple" crowd.

In other words, to move any of them forward would require submission
of a complete implementation that would work in the current
development tree, together with the necessary documentation
changes, thorough tests, and so on and so forth. That is, someone
who wants to see any of these in Python needs to do the work
themselves.

A good example of this is the work being done by Facundo Batista
on PEP 327 (Decimal Arithmetic). There''s been widespread
agreement for a long time that something should be done about
decimal arithmetic, but until he stepped forward, it sat on dead
center. Now it looks like we''re going to get it for Python 2.4,
so it may be possible for us to get a usable currency type in
Python 2.5 (building on the decimal type.)

Thank you for your explanation. What I don''t understand, though, is that the
PEPs for which an implementation exists aren''t discussed further, but are
just lying around in a corner, though there is a significant advantage in
the PEP''s proposal. I understand that the introduction of a new keyword is
a drastic change, but Python has good capabilities to compensate for that
(from __future__ ...).

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

--
greetz tom

这篇关于PEP的状况？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！