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.

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.

Hey... don't be afraid to speak up -- it's a good idea to challenge ideas around here. It's just that in this case most of the people who are speaking up don't seem to be swayed by your points. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful. For example, when Gareth said that you were trying to "define [declarative] at a rather high level of abstraction", I finally began to understand (I hope) what you were trying to convey with the term. Interesting... I had always thought of "declarative" and "imperative" as having a very clear boundary, but in fact, they can be looked at from a "higher level". So if nothing else, you've educated me a bit. It's just that you haven't convinced me that restricting decorators is wise, and once folks (on either side) descend to ad hominem attacks it's time to drop the subject. -- Michael Chermside This email may contain confidential or privileged information. If you believe you have received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.