Python 3.0 migration plans?
Diez B. Roggisch
deets at nospam.web.de
Fri Sep 28 09:32:27 CEST 2007
>> - Abstract Base Classes
> I like how someone here characterized decorators - those silly @
> things. They remind me of Perl. Not adding keywords for abstract and
> static is like Perl not adding a keyword for class. But I know all
> such additions are vigorously defended by the most ardent users of
> each language.
The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like
static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows
that, despite being the maintainer of a
soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of
even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.
The decorator syntax was vigorously discussed. I personally don't mind
the @-based syntax, but could live with anything else - because I like
and often need the feature for it's capabilities.
Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions
about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable
alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted....
More information about the Python-list