[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 318 trial balloon (wrappers) (original) (raw)

Paul Moore pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Mar 11 17:59:12 EST 2004

"Jewett, Jim J" <jim.jewett at eds.com> writes:

I am hoping to post a new draft of PEP318 soon.

Unfortunately, the solution that currently looks best to me has not been mentioned before.

[...]

class Foo: [transform] from: def bar(): pass

Ack, no.

I'm very strongly -1 on this particular suggestion, but I'd also make the point that we really, really don't need a new draft of the PEP opening up issues again. Please, only collate what's already been stated.

My general impression is:

  1. Semantics are pretty clear, but not documented explicitly yet. The PEP should document them. There's an open issue over the order in which decorators are applied.
  2. Syntax is coming down to a few contenders. The version implemented in mwh's patch, Guido's variation with the [...] in front of the args, and variations with "as" (with a few other suggested keywords).

Not much more than this. (I know, that's very over-simplified...)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I got the impression that you were one of the relatively few people still suggesting more radical alternatives. While I respect your motives, I hope the revised PEP will document the overall consensus, with a clear listing of the basic alternatives. By all means add more radical suggestions, but please keep them separate, and make it clear that they have not had the same level of discussion as the more "mainstream" suggestions.

The revised PEP needs to consolidate and summarise the discussions, not start them up again!

Paul.

This signature intentionally left blank

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list