Confused about pep 318

[Michael Hudson]

"Edward K. Ream" <edreamleo at charter.net> writes:

> Indeed, pep 318 is grossly misleading; 

PEP 318 has a slightly sorry history.  As far as I can remember, it
was written as an attempt to promote a specific syntax proposal (the
'as' variant?  Maybe, it's not really important).  Since then it's
been co-opted to be "The Decorators Pep" and received various rounds
of rewrites, none of which have pleased everyone (surprised?  with
this topic).  I belive it's fair to say that PEP 318 has *never*
accurately reflected the state of play on this issue.

This is unfortunate, yes.  The idea that the process goes from pep to
discussion back to pep to implementation is a nice one, but not really
how it happens, for better or worse.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
112. Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
  -- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html