Whoops, my apologies.  Apparently I don't get e-mails sent only to python-ideas and not also to me.  There was a lot of conversation to which I was ignorant.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Matthew Rocklin <mrocklin@gmail.com> wrote:
Is something stopping you from exploring this? Do you have specific ideas on how to improve on macropy?

Macropy is great but it requires an import-hook.  Many scientific users work interactively. 
It sounds almost as if you would like to implement this but you want some kind of promise ahead of time that your work will be incorporated into the language. But that's just not how it works. When you want to explore a big idea like this, at some point you have to be willing to take the risk of writing code without a guaranteed pay off. Haoyi didn't ask for macropy to be incorporated into Python -- in fact he was surprised at the amount of uptake it got.

The hard problem isn't building macros, it's deciding whether or not macros are good for Python.  I'm trying to start a discussion.  If this isn't the right place for that then I apologize.
You've received quite a bit of feedback (and, may I say, push back :-) from a small number of python-ideas veterans -- you can take this or leave it, but at this point I think you've gotten about as much mileage out of the list as can be expected.

My apologies.  I didn't realize that I was misusing this list.  I also didn't realize that I was receiving push-back, the comments here seemed friendly and encouraging.

Last year at SciPy the message I heard was "If you want to convince the core team then come to python-ideas armed with motivating use cases."  Here I am :)

Anyway, if there isn't any interest then I'll leave off.  Thank you all for your time,