-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PEP 712 -- Adding a “converter” parameter to dataclasses.field #206
Comments
Thanks for the nice PEP! We've posted our initial reply: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-712-adding-a-converter-parameter-to-dataclasses-field/26126/57 This SC is not leaning towards accepting this PEP as is, but we are open to being convinced by the community to change our minds (realistically: letting the next elected SC change their minds). Thus, keeping this issue open. |
@gpshead I guess that makes you Tim Curry 😄 |
In keeping the comments mirrored between here and Discourse: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-712-adding-a-converter-parameter-to-dataclasses-field/26126/58?u=thejcannon Specifically, what's the gut-feel on rejection of this, but approval of a scoped-down version only to |
My personal gut feel is that there is still a way forward to the ultimate feature people are wanting behind all of this (without the existing "just override dunder methods" approach or a "just go use attrs" disappointment). I haven't had time to settle on my thoughts. I'll follow up on the Discuss thread once I do. I suggest we keep all conversation there on Discuss. Scoping it to Like I tried to have our SC response say: This isn't rejected yet, we just weren't convinced yet and our default response is not a presumed "yes" in that scenario. Our goal is for more collective consensus on why, one way or another. There is clearly user support for the conversion concept. So future 2024-SC after more public discussion (and probably updates to the PEP to record whatever comes of that) still has time to consider it for 3.13, and if future-SC does ultimately reject it, we should better explain why (ideally in unsurprising ways that should already be reflected somewhere within the discussion thread by that point). |
(quoting from gpshead's SC nomination) Just wanted to chime in and say that I actually really appreciated the SC's approach to this PEP. I thought the feedback was very concrete and allowed for an element of clearly constrained dialogue that I think is healthy and hopefully will help us all make decisions with more clarity. |
As the PEP author, I like the candor. I like the SC wanting to participate in the discussion, and the earlier the better. That certainly feels more like "steering". And honesty is great. However, I think this particular messaging might've been a little too honest. Divulging that as-is it's unlikely to go in, turned it from conversation to convincing. That's reflected in the tone of the replies. So I love the direction, not so much the execution of this one 🥲 (If anyone wants to continue this discussion, let's start a thread on Discourse, I'll copy my reply there) |
Unfortunately the alternative is outright rejection. The SC basically accepts, rejects, or sends PEPs back for changes; we don't really have other options here when it comes to PEPs sent to us. If you would prefer to not deal with the replies on Discourse you can withdraw the PEP yourself or tell us you do not want to change the PEP, in which case we can reject it. Otherwise this is part of the overall PEP process. |
Perhaps I'm just really dense (it's a real possibility), but the decision post on Discourse didn't scream "this PEP was sent back for changes". To quote:
The answer, to me, felt like "we want to see more discussion before we're convinced", which my impression was that, divulging it's on the path to rejection, set the tone for the discussion. Now, it could also be that I just completely missed the "we're sending your PEP back for revision" in the message. In which case, as feedback from a first-time PEPer, that should ideally be stated clearly 😅 and I'll try and aggregate the discussion into a more convincing argument. |
It's our job to be honest, not to win support for your PEP. I'm sorry if you didn't like that honesty, but it was either that or rejection. We prefer to be open about why we are sending a PEP back for more consideration instead of accepting it or rejecting it, else people ask. Otherwise the other option was rejecting it outright and we assumed you would have preferred not for that to happen. |
Pretty pretty please consider PEP 712 -- Adding a “converter” parameter to dataclasses.field
https://peps.python.org/pep-0712/
Post-History
headerPost-History
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: