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

[Anthony Baxter]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:09:54 -0500, Doug Holton <insert at spam.here> wrote:
> > 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.

You're misinterpreting what I said - I said that "if you want a form
he's rejected,
you need _damn_ strong arguments to back it up". I was replying to someone
saying that it's not necessary to pay attention to Guido's rejections of various
forms, and pointing out that in fact you _do_ need to pay attention to them. If
there's a community concensus for an already-rejected form, but no-one has
bothered addressing the existing concerns, then it's something of a waste of
time. 

I'm not _trying_ to "confound the vote". I'm trying to *help* the
process. If that's
not considered useful, I'm quite happy to just step away from the entire issue.