The OP's posts all seem to consist of:

1. This other thing is way better
2. I won't explain what it is, but Rust does it better
3. The other folks who have used Rust don't understand it either
4. You are all too dumb to understand this great thing
5. Python should change it's syntax to allow this thing I won't explain.

I really can't see a point of discussing it. But thanks Steven for the pointer to a great article by Michele that I think I missed a decade ago. I did write a few metaclass articles with him even before that; Michele is quite a bright guy.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 7:11 AM Chris Angelico <> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:39 PM Soni L. <> wrote:
> you don't want me to be rude but when I literally explain rust traits
> you throw me an "that's not traits and fuck you for being rude/trying to
> get me to think".
> I'm just gonna say learn rust since you actively refuse to accept my
> explanation of rust traits. don't reply again until you've learned rust.

Status quo wins a stalemate. Onus is on YOU to convince people that
traits are (a) important and (b) impossible to do with current syntax.

I can't speak for anyone else, but at the moment, you've convinced me
that traits are just a different way of talking about something (but I
don't even know what), and they're just "I wish I had this thing". In
other words, you've thoroughly convinced me that this thread is not
worth participating in.

Python-ideas mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct: