J2 paper 0.2.1

[Robert Brewer]

First, thanks for the comments!

Paul Moore wrote:
> 1. I differ on the "it doesn't matter what the keyword is" statement.
>    On the contrary, my view could completely change depending on the
>    keyword - I'd loathe "predef", whereas "using" is acceptable to me.
>    Putting the proposal forward *without* an agreed keyword isn't
>    (IMHO) fair to people who have this view.

I understand your emotion, now, but not your reasoning, and in the
absence of that, I can't generate a fix for the proposal. If you could
go into more detail *why* you would loathe predef, it would go a long
way toward allowing a stronger statement in the doc. I feel "using" has
positives, but I don't know what the negatives of "predef" are. Happy to
make it stronger if there's an argument in addition to passion. Without
a logical argument, such a position comes down to "it's ugly", which
Guido has specifically said he doesn't care about or want to hear.

> 2. I agree with the person who pointed out that the indentation makes
>    the decorators merge visually with the function name. This is a
>    definite point against the syntax, and should be at least noted in
>    section "Arguments - I - 3 Additional benefits" paragraph 2. In
>    fact, I could esily argue that it completely invalidates this
>    point, swinging it in favour of @ syntax.

OK. I still feel the indent-dedent "points out where the def is" better
than @. But I'll try to synthesize the two in a more balanced fashion.

> 1. The patch doesn't (according to the comment) implement the
>    __future__ import. This needs to be added before the proposal is
>    submitted. And __future__ support for the interactive prompt may be
>    needed as well - I'm not sure here, see PEP 236 for the detail.

I agree it should. I'll see what can be done. Hope it's not too much of
a burden on Michael...? Anyone familiar with __future__'s that would
like to work on that?

> 2. Does the patch support decorating classes? The @ syntax *might* by
>    now (in CVS), there was discussion of adding it but I'm not sure it
>    went in. The patch should probably provide the same functionality
>    as CVS @-syntax, rather than just 2.4a2.

The patch does not support decorating classes, because @ doesn't.
There's a patch submitted for that*, but it hasn't been accepted, IIRC.
The PEP says 2.4 will see only function decorators.


Robert Brewer
MIS
Amor Ministries
fumanchu at amor.org

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1007991&group_i
d=5470&atid=305470