Guido's new method definition idea

[Aaron Brady]

On Dec 8, 6:43 pm, william tanksley <wtanksle... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:21 pm, "Daniel Fetchinson" <fetchin... at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'd like this new way of defining methods, what do you guys think?
> > Anyone ready for writing a PEP?
snip
>
> I see a lot of people are against it; I admit that it's not the status
> quo, but that's not a sufficient argument against a change (it defeats
> all possible changes). A more interesting argument against it is that
> it's special "implicit" syntax; but I would argue that it merely
> reflects the existing special syntax of method calls.

I claim that the burden of proof rests with the author of the
proposal.