[Guido] > I still think it shouldn't be needed. Do we have to add 'currently' > to every statement about the language? That doesn't make sense. The > reference manual's title page already includes a version number. > Shouldn't that be sufficient warning for those who want to interpret > any part of the manual as a promise for all future? Yes. > I really want to take a hard stance on this, because I believe the > only reason this came up was that someone needed to find an argument > against '@'. At least two reasonably popular Python tools use @ heavily now, and their authors didn't appear to give a rip about decorators one way or the other. The use of @ for any purpose in the core would have elicited similar concern. > I don't think their argument would have a chance in court, I believe they agree with that (partly because they both said so <wink>). > so there's no reason to give in to them. Courts are adversarial. You don't want an adversarial relationship with Python users -- there are lots of things to consider besides what a court would say. > Fight the trend to add silly disclaimers everywhere! +1. OTOH, I'm also +1 on picking a character and promising (in the reference manual) that the language will never use it, to give authors of these kinds of tools a way to live peacefully with Python evolution. @ seems like a good choice for that.
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