Jeff Bone <jbone@place.org> writes:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 5:50 AM, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
Excuse me, but when you're implying that Philip is "strategically myopic and slightly programming-language illiterate" and asking "what is your damage?" and calling his comments "bullshit" and likening him to "an ignorant school-marm", you are not in a great position to take the moral high ground about being either "aggressive" or "defensive".
Sorry, yes, you're correct. I apologize to Phil and the list. It's just rather frustrating to get beat all to hell (and told patronizingly to "read" a freakin' PEP I've read, repeatedly, before even speaking up) for no apparent reason just for raising what IMHO are rather legitimate concerns.
It's probably easy to underestimate the level of frustration around this issue. There have been THOUSANDS of posts to python-dev on this or close-by topics in the last 18 months. People who appear to be trying to take the discussion back to areas where there was perceived consensus aren't going to be popular.
My bad, I'll go back to lurk and if this particular feature turns out to be the giant hairball it appears to be I won't say anything.
This is why the subject is so delicate: it requires seeing into the future, and that's hard. If all decorators end up being used for is classmethods then it almsot doesn't matter which of the proposed syntaxes get used. If they become common, then it's a bigger issue. FWIW, I think the idea of limiting what a descriptor can be or do is insane (as well as possibly impossible). If the issue is that scary, then we shouldn't add any syntax at all. Cheers, mwh -- Just getting something to work usually means writing reams of code fast, like a Stephen King novel, but making it maintainable and high-quality code that really expresses the ideas well, is like writing poetry. Art is taking away. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp