Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.04; 'syntax': 0.04; 'guido': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'implemented.': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'pep': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'rossum': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'language,': 0.12; 'language.': 0.14; 'choice,': 0.16; 'docstrings': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'language': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'van': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; "i'm": 0.30; 'agreed.': 0.31; 'convince': 0.31; 'idea,': 0.31; 'men': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'quite': 0.32; 'plain': 0.33; 'anybody': 0.35; 'johnson': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'method': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'too': 0.37; 'turn': 0.37; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'new': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'our': 0.64; 'chance': 0.65; 'subject:! ': 0.74; 'introduce': 0.78; 'proposal,': 0.91; 'loves': 0.93; 'rick': 0.93 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 08:40:47 +0000 References: <54c07d04$0$13012$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <3fbbc664-ab4b-46e1-98a8-3859cb84fbb0@googlegroups.com> <8738738g5a.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> <2d7880a5-9c2d-4a04-81f0-aa1e1d493e1a@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-92-24-222-48.ppp.as43234.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 In-Reply-To: <2d7880a5-9c2d-4a04-81f0-aa1e1d493e1a@googlegroups.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1421916074 news.xs4all.nl 2884 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:43868 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:84211 On 22/01/2015 08:24, Rick Johnson wrote: > > Yes, YES, *YES*!!!! That would be my first choice, or > docstrings as a secondary. But to introduce new syntax > into the method signatures is SUICIDE! What the hell is > this man thinking? I take it you mean these men Guido van Rossum , Jukka Lehtosalo , Ɓukasz Langa as they are the authors of PEP484? > > Agreed. I'm not against the idea, heck, i want to see Python > improve just like anybody who loves this language, but the > implementation just plain sucks! Please convince GvR to move > this noisy syntax OUTSIDE of the signature! It's too noisy > and its going to turn people off. > What implementation? The PEP is quite clearly marked as draft. The Re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour is currently ongoing over on python-ideas regarding exactly what should be implemented. There is also nothing to stop you writing another PEP with an alternative proposal, although I suspect there is as much chance of that ever happening as there is of ever seeing RickedPython(3). -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence