Alternative decorator syntax - POLL RESULTS SO FAR - ARE WE DONE?

Paul McGuire ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com
Sun Aug 22 20:37:01 CEST 2004


"Arthur" <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote in message
news:ifchi0hqmhpag5umuukest5v4f2e73hjud at 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:07:53 -0500, Doug Holton <insert at spam.here>
> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think it should also be noted in the report of the voting results
> that the a vote for "no new syntax at this time" was specifically
> outlawed.
>
Arthur -

You should really direct this sentiment to Guido himself.  I think he's made
his mind pretty clear on python-dev that some form of decorator syntax is
coming, and that it's coming in 2.4.  All this voting process is doing is
trying to respond to his call for a unified alternative proposal.  I think
just about everyone who has had any part in this debate feels that just
about all of the relevant issues have been surfaced, and now it is time to
move forward with making some decisions.  Personally, I think this is why
Guido forced the issue by asking Anthony Baxter to go ahead and check in the
"@"-based syntax.  But that is his process and his choice - please forward
your comments on this to him.

As far as your comments re: the multivoting process, I'm sorry you felt
disenfranchised.  You should note that others took the initiative to add
their choices to the wiki page when they were not in the initial selection
set, and I think a vote of "No decorators, No decorators, No decorators"
would have made your point, at least amongst us at c.l.py.  But even if we
all rally behind "No decorators", I think the result will be that "@" syntax
will then prevail by default.

In any case, the polls are still "open" - should I put you down for "None of
the above" X 3 ?

-- Paul





More information about the Python-list mailing list