On consensus decision-making (was Re: Alternative decorator syntax - POLL RESULTS SO FAR - ARE WEDONE?)

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur  <ajsiegel at optonline.com> writes:

    Arthur> On 22 Aug 2004 19:36:38 +0300, Ville Vainio <ville at spammers.com>
    Arthur> wrote:

    >> 
    >> Obviously people who don't want any syntax at all should be ignored in
    >> the consensus building process...

    Arthur> I hate to contribute to a change in tone to what has been a pretty
    Arthur> civil controversy, all things considered, and Anthony's private hate
    Arthur> mail notwithstanding.

    Arthur> But that to me is a stupid remark.

The reason to ignore "no syntax" proponents is the fact that the whole
purpose of this excercise is to come up with an alternative syntax to
@pie. Guido doesnt't need a consensus about whether we want a
decorator syntax - he wants a consensus about an alternative
syntax. What is going in is either @pie or the syntax proposed by the
community. No syntax proposed by community -> @pie goes in, for better
or worse.

    Arthur> I have heard implicit and explicit threats on python-dev
    Arthur> in the case no new syntax made it into 2.4 - assumedly by
    Arthur> people who *really* hate some extra typing.  It is not
    Arthur> unreasonable to assume that vehemence is

Threats? Isn't that a tad dramatic?

Bottom line is - decorators are going in. Now it's just about
syntax. You'll never need to use them in your own code. I never use
backticks, which I think you can agree are a worse idea than many of
the proposed decorator syntaxes put together.

-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb