decorators vs GIL

Istvan Albert ialbert at mailblocks.com
Sun Aug 8 06:00:25 CEST 2004


A.M. Kuchling wrote:

> My basic point is that the features added to projects are those that people
> are willing to actually work on.  In the case of decorators, some people
> wanted decorators, for the sake of PyObjC or ctypes or whatever, and Mark
> Russell actually sat down and implemented it.  (Because he uses PyObjC?

I think one of the latent messages of this thread was that adding
new "gratuitous" features to the core language is a bad thing.

Just because someone sits down and codes it does not mean it
should be added to the language. Features are forever, you
cannot just can't eliminate them in the next version.

Why putter around with banalities like sorted() and reversed()
that only add to the cognitive overhead, break the consistency
in dealing with lists yet save at most a line or two of
coding? And what you imply here, that the fact of
having decorators works for PyObjC was considered in
the overall decision feels like putting the cart before
the horse.

Python is said to come with the batteries included, then
that's where new features should go, to the battery level
not into the wiring.

Istvan.




More information about the Python-list mailing list