PEP 318: Can't we all just get along?
Michael J. Fromberger
Michael.J.Fromberger at Clothing.Dartmouth.EDU
Thu Aug 19 23:31:32 CEST 2004
In article <10ia3aa8j6tbma5 at news.supernews.com>,
"John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote:
> "Michael J. Fromberger" <Michael.J.Fromberger at Clothing.Dartmouth.EDU> wrote
> in message news:Michael.J.Fromberger-D24476.14010119082004 at localhost...
> > In article <10i9msuatli5p84 at news.supernews.com>,
> > "John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote:
> > > In other words, forget the use cases. They're irrelevant.
> > On this point, I strongly disagree. If you don't have a use case, there
> > is no point whatsoever in arguing about the syntax of a feature.
> There is a use case. If you go back and read the original
> post I was replying to, it contains the sentence:
> [begin quote]
> I guess others had bigger plans for my proposal that I had planned. It
> has turned into the "solution" to many problems: type checking (both
> arguments and returned values), metaclasses, metadata, interfaces,
> function attributes, etc.).
> [end quote]
Ah, I see. I misunderstood your intent. My apologies.
Nevertheless, I think it's clear the Python community at large ought to
have a clearer idea of exactly what the use cases ARE (and, more
importantly, what they're not) before deciding on a syntax. It's not
clear to me that there's consensus on purpose yet (as witness the wildly
divergent ideas that have accumulated on the wiki, comp.lang.python, and
Michael J. Fromberger | Lecturer, Dept. of Computer Science
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sting/ | Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
More information about the Python-list