J2 proposal: keyword

Paul McGuire ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com
Tue Aug 24 00:06:32 CEST 2004

"Roy Smith" <roy at panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-266C0E.10503222082004 at reader1.panix.com...
> "Robert Brewer" <fumanchu at amor.org> wrote:
> > Just to put collected wisdom in one spot for now, here's what's in my
> > draft:
> >
> >
> > III. Choosing a keyword
> >
> > If a keyword is to be chosen over @ or other punctuation, the question
> > remains, "which word should it be?" Many words have been proposed, and
> > although we may recommend a small number here, it is more important that
> > we establish guidelines for the selection of a keyword. The keyword:
> >
> > -Should not be used widely as an identifier in existing Python code.
> > -Should be easy to remember when writing new code.
> > -Should be easy to remember when reading existing code.
> > -Should be easy to search for, in both docs and Google.
> > -Should not be a word with a planned future. This rules out "with" and
> > "as" (I should probably footnote this).
> > -In this author's opinion (back me up here, people), it should not be a
> > form of the word "decorate". The term "decorate" conflicts with two
> > separate concepts: both the GoF Decorator pattern (which is a runtime
> > wrapper, not a compile-time one), and with our own beloved
> > "decorate-sort-undecorate" pattern (aka Schwartzian or Guttman-Rosler
> > Transform).
> Putting on my "Slightly Silly Party" hat, may I suggest that "pie" meets
> all of those constraints :-)

... with the exception of the assumed constraint that the keyword will be a
*word*, and not some malodorous punctuation mark resembling a SNOTTY-FACED

Oh, sorry, that was abuse...

-- Paul

More information about the Python-list mailing list