[Python-Dev] Strawman decision: @decorator won't change
ptmcg at austin.rr._bogus_.com
Fri Sep 17 15:25:13 CEST 2004
"Arthur" <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote in message
news:15mlk0d63duukvnqtsrb4eguuldqd6ub2g at 4ax.com...
> And were it opened for debate you would run into bizarre arguments in
> its defense. Like mine.
Well, it *is* opened for debate, so knock yourself out. The more bizarre
the better, I'd say.
> That there a mechanism in Python described by a arbitrary word,
> "decorator" and provoked by an arbitrary symbol '@'
> The symbol *works*, as a sore thumb and a tacit admission of
Why do STOP signs say STOP? Why not put an arbitrary @ sign on them, and
tell everyone it means STOP?
Your argument is equally valid for *any* symbol. Why choose this ugly blot?
This arbitrary symbology is the way of Perl and APL. I thought one of the
beauties of Python was that it doesn't impose this kind of obtusity on the
developer or maintainer.
> It is defended in this view by its anti-esthetic.
Are you a Dada-ist? Is Python becoming the Dada language?
> Having to put up with this kind of argument in its defense is perhaps
> a good reason to not re-open the discussion.
This sounds like another way of saying "this is a silly argument, and we
would be better off without it." The point is, just about *all* the
arguments for this symbol or that will from here on *be* silly arguments.
''Suppose someone were to assert: The gostak distims the doshes. You do
not know what this means; nor do I. But if we assume that it is
English, we know that 'the doshes are distimmed by the gostak'. We
know too that 'one distimmer of doshes is a gostak' . If moreover,
the 'doshes are galloons', we know that 'some galloons are distimmed
by the gostak'. And so we may go on, and *so we often do go on.*''
>From "The Meaning of Meaning" by C.K.Ogden and I.A. Richards
More information about the Python-list