just ignore Guido's "rejections" [Re: Alternative decorator syntaxdecision]

[Gyro Funch]

Jeff Shannon wrote:

> Doug Holton wrote:
> 
>> Anthony Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:50:18 -0500, Doug Holton <insert at spam.here> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We can safely ignore Guido's "rejections" when deciding upon an
>>>> alternative to agree upon.  Many people felt his rejections of C1 (a
>>>> longtime community favorite), E1 and other alternatives were wrong.
>>>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/048134.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, what? No, you _can't_ ignore Guido's rejections - if you really 
>>> decide
>>> that you must have a form he's objected to, you need a _damn_ strong
>>> argument to back that up. A "longtime community favorite" doesn't mean
>>> a thing - this is language design, not American Idol - that a lot of 
>>> people
>>> like it makes no difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, yes.  The point is to determine what the *community* decides on, 
>> and *then* present that to Guido.  You're just helpping confound this 
>> second vote even more.  Some people aren't voting for what they think 
>> is best, but what they think Guido hasn't "rejected".  That is 
>> ridiculous. You'll end up with a syntax that nobody really ever liked 
>> most, even Guido.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if the community decides that the only thing they 
> prefer to @pie is something that Guido's already rejected... then we get 
> @pie.
> I can vote for Superman for president all I want, and I can talk all my 
> friends into voting for him, but even if a majority of the country votes 
> for Superman, he's still not gonna be taking any inaugural oath.  
> Instead of voting for an impossible fantasy, it's much more sensible to 
> restrict myself to voting for people/options with *some* chance of success.
> 
> Keep in mind here, that what we're trying to do is vote for something 
> for which we think we can create a convincing case that it's better than 
> @pie.  And Guido is the only person for whom "convincing" is relevant.  
> If he's already rejected something, it will be *extremely* difficult to 
> convince him that his rejection was a mistake.  I'd rather focus my 
> efforts where they're a little more likely to bear fruit.
> 
> Jeff Shannon
> Technician/Programmer
> Credit International
> 

 From python-dev

 >>If the community can *agree* on
 >>> > something they can support, I will listen.
 >
 >>
 >> Even if it's []-after-args?


If most people favor that over prefix @deco, sure, I'll give it
another look.  (It better come with an implementation though.)

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)