Confused about pep 318

[Anthony Baxter]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:35:57 -0500, Edward K. Ream <edreamleo at charter.net> wrote:
> I could not disagree more.  Pretending that discussions on py-dev and
> SourceForge count as truly public discussions of pep 318 is most unwise.
> pep 318 does not discuss '@' at all.  People like me, with a strong interest
> in how Python uses '@', would not naturally have known about the proposed
> new syntax until the stuff hit the fan.

Sorry, but if discussions on python-dev are not considered "public", what is?
It's an open list, with publically available archives. Expecting the python-dev
team to read all of comp.lang.python is foolish - most of us have very little
spare time as it is. For instance, I usually only follow the list immediately
after a release. I have no time to wade through the hundreds of posts a day
on a regular basis. Indeed, I'm currently up way way too late at night to 
participate in this discussion, because the chances are I'll have no time 
tomorrow to do so.
 
> Indeed, pep 318 is grossly misleading; reading it one gets the distinct
> impression that the design is far from complete.  It is my strong opinion
> that _no_ public discussion of this new code has taken place, and none _can_
> take place until we see what it is exactly that is being proposed. 

See above. Exactly how is a public mailing list with an open subscription
policy, no limitations on who can post, and with web searchable archives,
not public. And if you think there hasn't been discussion on this matter, 
you obviously haven't even bothered to look at the archives. There has 
been a overwhelming amount of discussion on this.

> This is
> an issue of basic fairness and openness.  I have complained loudly to the
> [B]DFL.  We shall see...

Fariness and openness? This isn't a debating club! As far as fairness - well,
after all the discussions were had, Guido made a judgment call. That's what
he does. Python, thank the gods, is not designed by some system of voting
and the like.

To summarise:
As I've stated already, I'm aware that PEP 318 needs an update. If no-one
else gets it done before next week, I will have time to work on it again. If one
of the people complaining about it wants to sit down and trawl the (literally) 
hundreds and hundreds of python-dev messages, spread over the last 2+ 
years, and extract the relevant posts, that would be excellent! If you're only
going to sit and bitch about it, well, I can spend my time better trawling the
archives.

PEP 318 _will_ be updated and complete before 2.4 final is done - it's on my 
list as a blocker for the final. Ideally (and I plan for this) it will
be done before a3.

Anthony