Alternative decorator syntax decision

[David Fraser]

Peter Hansen wrote:
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Shannon wrote:
>>
>>> My votes:  J2   J2  E2
>>
>>
>> I second that.  (J2 J2 E2)
> 
> 
> I believe that the result the direction this is taking is
> inevitable: a widely split vote with no consensus.  I did
> think there was much more agreement about which one was the
> best alternative, warts and all, to @pie and which one was
> therefore the most likely to get any attention at all from
> Guido.  I also thought people had a better grasp of which
> ones had already been *rejected* fairly conclusively.

Exactly. From this standpoint, the list on the wiki should be filtered 
to something that
   1) doesn't have the declaration in the body of the function
   2) doesn't have the declaration following the parameters

1) rules out D1 D2 E1 E2
2) rules out C1 C2 C3 C4 E3

This leaves (with A left out as we're looking at alternatives)
B F G H I J1 J2 J3 J4 K L M

With the voting going the way it currently is J2 is winning anyway, the 
only current close competitor would be C1 or a variant, but I think it 
looks like J2 is going to be the one to form a concensus around.
(Current ranking is J2=38, C1=18, C1+C2+C3+C4=25, next highest is F=6, 
out of 34 voters giving 102 votes).

The other one I supported was L but that's more on the basis of 
if-we-have-to-have-it-this-way-at-least-make-it-a-keyword-not-a-punctuation-character 
which I guess could always be argued for if J2 doesn't get it.

David