Call for signatories for J2

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

    Paul> out not to be the right thing.  But for new language syntax,
    Paul> whatever gets implemented, we are going to be stuck with.
    Paul> There will be no refactoring possible.  It's imperative to
    Paul> get it right the first time.  The Scheme community
    Paul> understood this idea and was extremely careful

Well, there will be py3k that will be able to break the
compatibility. Code using decorators also be automatically
modified to use a different decorator syntax (or no syntax at all) if
they, for some reason, turn out to be a terrible idea.

    Paul> about adding new features to Scheme even when it was clear
    Paul> that the features were needed.  I think Scheme benefited as
    Paul> a result.

As proved by its mindblowing success ;-)?  *ducks*

Python culture is fundamentally different from the Scheme culture, and
even Lisp culture - this is possibly one of the reasons for its
success. It's not about "we've got all we need, thank you - and don't
you dare suggest anything else" but "this would allow much more
elegant code, even if not strictly necessary". That's why we have List
Comprehensions, generators, iterators at core, and soon genexps (and
yes, decorators).

Down that road doesn't necessarily lie C++, which has problems with
its basic foundation, not with the later additions. Python computation
model has a very simple and "obvious" feel to it, and additions just
enable us to rev it up a little bit more.

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