Python 3.0 migration plans?

Diez B. Roggisch deets at
Fri Sep 28 09:32:27 CEST 2007

TheFlyingDutchman schrieb:
>>   - Abstract Base Classes
>>     <URL:>
> 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.[1]

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 mailing list