[Guido van Rossum] > I am asking everyone who has participated in the thread(s) about new > syntax (with, thunks, etc.) to hold off posting for a day, and think > about summarizing the state of the discussion. Then if someone could > post a summary of the various proposals on the table, with the key > arguments pro and con for each, I'd like to start continuing. The > goal at this point should be one or more PEPs. If you would like to > volunteer to (co-)author a thread summary, please post to the list. > The first volunteer to post gets to coordinate the others. > So Guido made this request on Wed. morning EST and so far no one beyond me has responded. Well, I am going to be starting on my rough of the summary in the near future. Now obviously I need a summary of what occured in the thread. This can happen one of two ways. One is that people summarize the parts of the thread that they heavily participated in and I build off of those (such as the PEP Paul and Michael are working on for the 'with' protocol; what is the ETA on that, you guys?). The other is that I do the summary. Now, you might be saying, "hey, I will just let Brett do the summary and not worry about it!" Bad idea. =) I doubt I will do the proposals justice, let alone I personally do not love some of the proposals so bias might (more like will, but I am trying to give the appearance of objectivity =) seep in. But if the latter does occur, I will post the summaries here as soon as I do them separate from the official Summary. Then I can start discussing my atomic keyword idea again without getting into trouble. =) -Brett
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4