Confused about pep 318

[Anthony Baxter]

Re: Confused about pep 318

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
> does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax does.[/color]

FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused symbol. That's all.
It's hardly arbitrary - Java, for instance, already uses @ for the same thing.

[Anthony Baxter]

Re: Confused about pep 318

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
> does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax does.[/color]

FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused symbol. That's all.

[Edward K. Ream]

Re: Confused about pep 318

> None of the decorator discussions _ever_ reached a conclusion.

I find this oddly reassuring, in a sorta black-humorous way. At least we
won't have to undo the previous agreement :-)
[color=blue]
> Would the bitching have been
> seriously that much better if, half an hour before I committed the patch,
> Guido had posted a note saying pretty much what I forwarded on from him?[/color]

The issue is not about rights to commit code, the issues are whether

a) the question was ever publicly discussed at all and
b) whether any consensus was reached.

Apparently, the answer to both questions is No.
[color=blue]
> Yes, it would have been nice if PEP-0318 was updated in advance of this.[/color]

Not nice. Essential. It is fundamentally unfair to pretend to have
discussed a proposal publicly that has always been grossly misrepresented in
the one place one would naturally look to find information about it.

Edward
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo@chart er.net
Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anthony Baxter]

Re: Confused about pep 318

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:35:57 -0500, Edward K. Ream <edreamleo@char ter.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> I could not disagree more. Pretending that discussions on py-dev and
> SourceForge count as truly public discussions of pep 318 is most unwise.
> pep 318 does not discuss '@' at all. People like me, with a strong interest
> in how Python uses '@', would not naturally have known about the proposed
> new syntax until the stuff hit the fan.[/color]

Sorry, but if discussions on python-dev are not considered "public", what is?
It's an open list, with publically available archives. Expecting the python-dev
team to read all of comp.lang.pytho n is foolish - most of us have very little
spare time as it is. For instance, I usually only follow the list immediately
after a release. I have no time to wade through the hundreds of posts a day
on a regular basis. Indeed, I'm currently up way way too late at night to
participate in this discussion, because the chances are I'll have no time
tomorrow to do so.
[color=blue]
> Indeed, pep 318 is grossly misleading; reading it one gets the distinct
> impression that the design is far from complete. It is my strong opinion
> that _no_ public discussion of this new code has taken place, and none _can_
> take place until we see what it is exactly that is being proposed.[/color]

See above. Exactly how is a public mailing list with an open subscription
policy, no limitations on who can post, and with web searchable archives,
not public. And if you think there hasn't been discussion on this matter,
you obviously haven't even bothered to look at the archives. There has
been a overwhelming amount of discussion on this.
[color=blue]
> This is
> an issue of basic fairness and openness. I have complained loudly to the
> [B]DFL. We shall see...[/color]

Fariness and openness? This isn't a debating club! As far as fairness - well,
after all the discussions were had, Guido made a judgment call. That's what
he does. Python, thank the gods, is not designed by some system of voting
and the like.

To summarise:
As I've stated already, I'm aware that PEP 318 needs an update. If no-one
else gets it done before next week, I will have time to work on it again. If one
of the people complaining about it wants to sit down and trawl the (literally)
hundreds and hundreds of python-dev messages, spread over the last 2+
years, and extract the relevant posts, that would be excellent! If you're only
going to sit and bitch about it, well, I can spend my time better trawling the
archives.

PEP 318 _will_ be updated and complete before 2.4 final is done - it's on my
list as a blocker for the final. Ideally (and I plan for this) it will
be done before a3.

Anthony

[Christopher T King]

Re: Confused about pep 318

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Anthony Baxter wrote:
[color=blue]
> To summarise: As I've stated already, I'm aware that PEP 318 needs an
> update. If no-one else gets it done before next week, I will have time
> to work on it again. If one of the people complaining about it wants to
> sit down and trawl the (literally) hundreds and hundreds of python-dev
> messages, spread over the last 2+ years, and extract the relevant posts,
> that would be excellent! If you're only going to sit and bitch about it,
> well, I can spend my time better trawling the archives.[/color]

I'd be willing to do this this weekend (esp. being Python Bug Day),
assuming Skip doesn't get to it first.

On a related note, I suggest anyone interested read this thread on
python-dev, "Call for defense of @decorators":

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046878.html

In it, Guido makes some very interesting remarks, most notably:

I also want to find out about superior syntax proposals (from __future__
import decorators might be acceptable).

and

... I suggest that the proponents of syntax alternatives will have
to agree amongst themselves on a single alternative that they can
present to me.

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Confused about pep 318

Anthony Baxter wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
>>does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax does.[/color]
>
> FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused symbol. That's all.[/color]

"For Fucks Sake", presumably? Sorry you're feeling pressured by this...

Anyway, that is exactly what is Perlish about it. Perl takes pretty
much every unused symbol and finds some completely arbitrary way
to use them, just because they are there. So far, Guido has
avoided that (almost?) entirely in Python, using symbols that
have very well-established meanings in other computer languages and
even outside of the computer realm itself (e.g. the use of colon).

It surprises me that he didn't discard this choice out of hand.

I'm also surprised that the choice which had the greatest public
support during the straw poll at PyCon isn't still under discussion,
but I readily admit I'm neither following nor participating in
the pydev discussions where it was presumably dropped for some valid
reason...

-Peter

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Confused about pep 318

Anthony Baxter wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
>>does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax does.[/color]
>
> FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused symbol. That's all.
> It's hardly arbitrary - Java, for instance, already uses @ for the same thing.[/color]

And Java chose it based on what precedent? Basing a choice on
someone else's arbitrary choice makes something only ever so
slightly less arbitrary.

Python doesn't need to select syntax from other languages. Python
leads, it doesn't follow. Until now. :-(

-Peter

[Edward K. Ream]

Re: Confused about pep 318

> Sorry, but if discussions on python-dev are not considered "public", what
is?

The reason that discussions on py-dev were not valid a public discussion of
'@' is that there was no public announcement that pep 318 pertained to '@'.
It's that simple.

It's sorta like holding a public meeting supposedly to discuss sewers and
voting to give all the county commissioners 100% raises instead :-) The
public wasn't informed of the true nature of the meeting, so the open
meeting law was violated.

To repeat: given that pep 318 is grossly misleading, I contend that no
proper discussion of it has ever taken place. Sorry, but if you actively
mislead the public, then the public _does_ have a right to complain. The
web is a huge place. Expecting people to track it without proper notice of
what is being discussed is patently unfair.

Edward
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward K. Ream email: edreamleo@chart er.net
Leo: Literate Editor with Outlines
Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael Hudson]

Re: Confused about pep 318

"Edward K. Ream" <edreamleo@char ter.net> writes:
[color=blue]
> Indeed, pep 318 is grossly misleading;[/color]

PEP 318 has a slightly sorry history. As far as I can remember, it
was written as an attempt to promote a specific syntax proposal (the
'as' variant? Maybe, it's not really important). Since then it's
been co-opted to be "The Decorators Pep" and received various rounds
of rewrites, none of which have pleased everyone (surprised? with
this topic). I belive it's fair to say that PEP 318 has *never*
accurately reflected the state of play on this issue.

This is unfortunate, yes. The idea that the process goes from pep to
discussion back to pep to implementation is a nice one, but not really
how it happens, for better or worse.

Cheers,
mwh

--
112. Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html

[Michael Hudson]

Re: Confused about pep 318

Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Python doesn't need to select syntax from other languages. Python
> leads, it doesn't follow. Until now. :-([/color]

Say what?

Cheers,
mwh

--
8. A programming language is low level when its programs require
attention to the irrelevant.
-- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Confused about pep 318

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Baxter <anthonybaxter@ gmail.com> writes:

Anthony> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:29:29 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'll make another donation to PSF if the final decorator syntax
>> does not Perlishly use arbitrary punctuation as the @ syntax
>> does.[/color][/color]

Anthony> FFS. What exactly is "Perlish" about @? It's an unused
Anthony> symbol. That's all. It's hardly arbitrary - Java, for
Anthony> instance, already uses @ for the same thing.

The problem with @ as I see it (FWIW, of course) is that the new
syntax wastes @ for a minor feature. I wouldn't mind @[decorator],
which would allow reserving stuff like @private (compiler / type
inferrer / macro / whatever) for future extension of the language.

And "def decorator func(args):" is even worse. Most interesting
applications of decorators involve decorators with arguments...

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Confused about pep 318


"Christophe r T King" <squirrel@WPI.E DU> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4 .44.04080512490 50.10473-100000@ccc6.wpi .edu...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>[color=green]
> > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...ead.html#45516
> > was over a month earlier.[/color]
>
> That thread reaches no consensus,[/color]

To me this is evasion.
[color=blue]
>Steven Bethard wrote:[color=green]
>> Wow, this one really feels like it was slipped in while no one was[/color][/color]
looking.

You wrote:[color=blue]
>That's because it was. ...
>There had previously been no public discussions about it.[/color]

You (agreeing with Steven) made a false accusation of something like
dastardliness. Just admit your mistake and move on.

I happen to sympathize with some of you concerns and suggestions, but not
with needless bashing of volunteers.
[color=blue]
>other than, in his sole post in the thread, Guido stating
>"I would love to see an implementation of this idea."[/color]

Hence, I was not surprised to see it in an alpha as an experimental feature
which might or might not stay.

Terry J. Reedy

[Christopher T King]

Re: Confused about pep 318

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Terry Reedy wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Christophe r T King" <squirrel@WPI.E DU> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4 .44.04080512490 50.10473-100000@ccc6.wpi .edu...[color=green]
> > That thread reaches no consensus,[/color]
>
> To me this is evasion.[/color]

Well, it is.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >That's because it was. ...
> >There had previously been no public discussions about it.[/color]
>
> You (agreeing with Steven) made a false accusation of something like
> dastardliness. Just admit your mistake and move on.[/color]

(More evasion:) +10 points for using the word "dastardlin ess" in a
sentence. +10 more for using it legitimately in a post on a computer
language mailing list.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >other than, in his sole post in the thread, Guido stating
> >"I would love to see an implementation of this idea."[/color]
>
> Hence, I was not surprised to see it in an alpha as an experimental feature
> which might or might not stay.[/color]

Indeed, I was comforted by a recent post of Guido's in python-dev:

When I let Anthony check it in for 2.4a2, the plan was to see how it
fares in a2 and a3, and possibly take it out in 2.4b1.

I was afraid that going in so close to 2.4b1, @ was in for good, but
knowing they may yet come out is good.

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Confused about pep 318

> The issue is not about rights to commit code, the issues are whether[color=blue]
>
> a) the question was ever publicly discussed at all and[/color]

Deorators have been discussed on PyDev at least since Jan 03. The @ syntax
was introduced there in June04 with AB's post starting this thread:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-June/thread.html#45516

[color=blue]
> b) whether any consensus was reached.[/color]

My impression as a mostly lurker who sees no immediate personal use for
decos is that there was a partial consensus on the desirability of
something, but not on the syntax. The 'tie-breaking' procedure is Guido
decides, and so, with 2.4 looming, he did, at least as an experiment.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Yes, it would have been nice if PEP-0318 was updated in advance of[/color][/color]
this.[color=blue]
>
> Not nice. Essential. It is fundamentally unfair to pretend to have
> discussed a proposal publicly that has always been grossly misrepresented[/color]
in[color=blue]
> the one place one would naturally look to find information about it.[/color]

Perhaps in this case the PSF should have paid someone to keep it updated
better. The problem I see is that most strong advocates of some deco
syntax also had a favorite syntax and were not candidates writing an
even-handed treatment of options.

Terry J. Reedy

[Terry Reedy]

Re: Confused about pep 318


"Anthony Baxter" <anthonybaxter@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e69d3ed204 080511024376853 8@mail.gmail.co m...[color=blue]
> Sorry, but if discussions on python-dev are not considered "public", what[/color]
is?[color=blue]
> It's an open list, with publically available archives.[/color]

For those who prefer a newgroup interface, for the selective download into
a separate box, gmane.org carries it as comp.lang.pytho n.devel. Also,
Brett Cannon's summaries have been posted here on c.l.py for nearly two
years, with references to the appropriate threads in the archives.

Terry J. Reedy