Call for signatories for J2
tim.hochberg at ieee.org
Thu Aug 26 18:54:51 CEST 2004
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Robert Brewer <fumanchu at amor.org> wrote:
>>This is a call for all who wish to sign the proposal, either for,
>>against, or abstaining. Please sign by either posting on
>>comp.lang.python (replying to this is fine), or sending email to
I also have a weak preference for 'per' over 'using', FWIW. The
shortness of 'per' is one virtue. Another is that, because it's slightly
obscure, it may be easier to indoctrinate users that 'per...def' is the
correct order, not 'def...per'. For me at least it's 'obvious' that if
'using...def' works then so should 'def...using', which of course it
can't. The order is amenable to memorization, but I still anticipate
more thinkos of this type from using than from per. On the downside, per
may be extremely obscure to those that are neither native speakers of
English or one of the romance languages.
> 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:-).
More information about the Python-list