Confused about pep 318

Aahz aahz at
Fri Aug 6 05:43:29 CEST 2004

In article <mailman.1241.1091758030.5135.python-list at>,
Anthony Baxter  <anthonybaxter at> wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 13:36:23 -0500, Edward K. Ream <edreamleo at> wrote:
>> To repeat: given that pep 318 is grossly misleading, I contend that
>> no proper discussion of it has ever taken place.  Sorry, but if you
>> actively mislead the public, then the public _does_ have a right to
>> complain.  The web is a huge place.  Expecting people to track it
>> without proper notice of what is being discussed is patently unfair.
>"Actively mislead the public"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
>Look, you keep insinuating that there was some sort of evil plot to
>slip this into Python. I can assure you that this is NOT true, and I'm
>getting more than a little bit fed up with this argument.

I'm not reading Edward as claiming the existence of an evil plot.  OTOH,
"actively mislead" is certainly an overstatement, *except* WRT the claim
you're making that there was public discussion of the @ syntax going into
Python.  I think Edward's got a fair point there.

Also, there has historically been an expectation that PEPs will be
posted to comp.lang.python in their final draft form; while I agree with
you that python-dev is a public forum, I think the outrage expressed by
those who believed that they didn't *NEED* to monitor python-dev is
entirely understandable.
Aahz (aahz at           <*>

"To me vi is Zen.  To use vi is to practice zen.  Every command is a
koan.  Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.  You
discover truth everytime you use it."  --reddy at

More information about the Python-list mailing list