Call for signatories for J2

Michael Sparks michaels at rd.bbc.co.uk
Thu Aug 26 12:29:24 CEST 2004


Alex Martelli wrote:
...
> I wish we'd use a better keyword than 'using' which would have a
> bazillion other possible and useful future interpretations.  Of the
> possible keywords mentioned on the site, several (by, per, through,
> via) appear better to me, and I'd particularly love the three-letter
> ones as they'd align well with 'def' -- my own preference would be
> 'per'.
> 
> However, I suspect it's too late to submit J2 with anything but
> 'using' and I'd rather have J2 with 'using' than the pie-before-def
> thingy, so, here's my "tactical" FOR vote:-).

It might (or might not) be too late but just as a check I checked
to see if "per" is used by any projects listed in the proposal. (I
was checking Twisted and Zope for "using" so decided to do "per"
as well)

The irony here is that just like "using" the only project that I could
find out of those list on the proposal, Twisted and Zope X3 using "per"
is python itself. Specifically Idle uses it internally as a shorthand
for "percolator".

Changing the patch to work with "per" would be simple, and I don't know
if Guido reads this group (I suspect not?), but for the record "using"
and "per" appear to have the same risk level to existing code - ie very
low. 

"per"'s risk level might be marginally lower because it's only used
in idle's guts, whereas "using" is used in webbrowser's get method
as a sole named parameter. Whilst I can't find anything using the
latter, it's certainly more likely than someone relying on the guts
of a project to remain unchanging.

Best regards,


Michael.
-- 
Michael.Sparks at rd.bbc.co.uk    
British Broadcasting Corporation, Research and Development
Kingswood Warren, Surrey KT20 6NP

This message (and any attachments) may contain personal views
which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.





More information about the Python-list mailing list