decorator syntax polling suggestion

[Peter Hansen]

Anthony Baxter wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:12:56 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> 
>>On the other, if there are people who are dissatisfied with
>>@pie, they can vote, use the results to help them focus
>>their energies on the most likely alternate candidate(s),
>>and finally present a united front saying "uh, @pie
>>sucks, and we have a wide consensus that syntax XXXX
>>would be much better for these reasons..."
> 
> But then you end up with the opposite problem - a pile of
> people say "we want this one" (say, list-before-def), it's
> implemented, then all the people who prefer pie-decorators
> start jumping up and down.

Why on earth would it be *implemented* before we rationally
faced that phase of the debate?  Nobody that I know is silly
enough to think that we should immediately rip out @pie
if there's an alternative that lots of people like better,
since it's pretty obvious there are people who like (and
have invested significant mindshare in getting used to) @pie.

No, this phase doesn't involve the @pie-ists... it's a
reasonable discussion amonst those who don't like it.  Someone
asked us to do that.  Now we're doing it, so don't complain.
When, or if, we reach a consensus, then we start to involve
the @pie folks but until then it's not their argument.

> I don't think there's as wide a concensus as I keep hearing
> about. 

Where have you heard there *was* a consensus?  I don't recall
seeing such a thing, though I've raised the question of whether
it exists yet.

 > The people who hate pie-decorators post a _lot_ -
> most people seem to either not care, or else post once or
> twice and then disappear. I think I'm about the only person
> posting in any volume to c.l.py in favour of the syntax, and
> even then, my liking of it is also driven by a dislike of the 
> other proposed syntaxes. 

Well, for the record then (and in spite of my "not their
argument" rant above), could you please provide your opinion
and reasons on the "decorate:" syntax?  To be completely
honest about it, I haven't seen very many negative comments
about it.  In fact, almost none, and that's why I was
starting to think there *might* be a consensus forming,
which is why I started asking.

-Peter