RetroSearch Browse

Fri Aug 6 05:09:12 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047045.html

    >> Having said that, I don't think the lack of completed PEP is a reason
    >> to back out the @ syntax from CVS. If nothing else, it being present
    >> in a released alpha is giving us very real experience with the use of
    >> the feature.

    Dave> (FWIW, it seems that a lot of the uproar about the syntax change
    Dave> is that it is being interpreted as a permanent change to the
    Dave> language rather than just experimental functionality. 

I early June I suggested that two different candidate syntaxes be added for
the alpha (Guido's previous before-the-def candidate and the list-after-def
syntax) precisely so people could experiment with both variants and decide
which one they liked better.  Guido shot it down immediately:

    http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/045192.html

He was probably mostly averse to the two-at-once idea, but I also didn't
sense any support for the idea of any experimental addition.

I still think that finding a way to let users play with a couple syntax
variants would be a reasonable way to sort things out.

Skip

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/047045.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 318, and the PEP process