On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 12:17, Alex Walters email@example.com wrote:
Telling someone you are trying to convince to do something to go learn something else to "get on your level" as the youth would put it... is not how you get people to agree with you.
To summarize this thread, as I see it so far
- you asked about adding a feature with the name "traits" to the language.
- it was pointed out that "traits", in context, has a meaning on computer science
- Rust's implementation of traits is some order of magnitude different from the plutonic ideal of traits
- Rust, not being python, has to have its concepts translated. Your version of the translation of the rust concept is further from the plutonic ideal of a trait than other users on this list.
- You were asked to nail down a definition of what you are talking about
I think I have the order of events here. I still haven't seen a clear definition of what you actually want to propose. I'm not convinced of what traits are, let alone there are worthwhile, and then that they would warrant changing the syntax of the language.
Having followed this thread, but not participated, I would go as far as to say that whether traits as a concept are something useful for Python, I would not be willing to accept a proposal on them from someone with the attitude that has been displayed by the OP. I have no confidence that he will consider the impact of their proposal on other users of Python who do not have his understanding, and as that's pretty key to any proposal getting accepted, the whole discussion seems unlikely to get anywhere.
I'm happy to see a proposal for a traits mechanism in Python, just not from the Soni L (unless there's an extremely visible change in his attitude and approach).