Call for signatories for J2

[Paul Moore]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

"Robert Brewer" <fumanchu@amor. org> writes:
[color=blue]
> The J2 proposal is as complete as it will ever be.
>
> http://www.aminus.org/rbre/python/pydec.html[/color]

Against.

I can't see anything to convince me this is better that pie-syntax
(which is in place, and complete, *right now*). And it still doesn't
specify the keyword - which means there's another argument waiting to
happen.

Paul
--
Instant gratification takes too long -- Carrie Fisher

[Paul Rubin]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Michael Sparks <zathras@thwack ety.com> writes:[color=blue]
> * Decorators incorporated via the __future__ mechanism
> * A subset of people use them in earnest
> * It's found that it would be useful to change the syntax whilst it's
> still in the experimental __future__ phase. (As might've happened but
> didn't with yield and generators)[/color]

I thought __future__ isn't for experimental features, but rather, it's
for definitely-accepted features that potentially break existing code,
for example by adding new keywords or changing the meaning of
something (the / division operator). The idea is for a release or two
of the interpreter to signal a warning when an old program uses the
new keyword.

[Scott David Daniels]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Robert Brewer wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is a call for all who wish to sign the proposal, either for,
> against, or abstaining.[/color]

Count me as a "for" (although I don't really have anywhere as much
dislike of "@" as many of my co-signers).

-Scott Davd Daniels
Scott.Daniels@A cm.Org

[djw]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

For

Don Welch

[Anthony Baxter]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:14:33 +0100, Michael Sparks
<zathras@thwack ety.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> 1 The @pie implementation might stay as is.
> 2 The @pie implementation might stay, but require explicit activation
> needing a __future__ statement. This to my mind is a good option - it
> clearly marks the feature as experimental, making people shy away from
> use unless they really do need it.
> 3 J2 might be accepted.
> 4 The feature might be ripped out
> * etc...
>
> Options 2 or 3 strike me as the best approach here - introduce a feature,
> mark it as experimental, with a large warning that it might change in the
> next release. That potentially allows the best of both worlds - people can
> use the feature in earnest, but do so on the understanding that the feature
> may change in a later release meaning that if they use it they have to be
> prepared to change their code. Furthermore if they release code using the
> feature they should be very careful how they use the feature.[/color]

That's not the way Python works - we don't rip stuff out once it's
been in a final release. from __future__ is added so that people can
turn on a new feature gradually, without their code being instantly
broken.

[Greg Ewing]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Michael Sparks wrote:[color=blue]
> I think I'd agree. However for many people outside of python-dev and those
> who only dip into c.l.p, the @pie came as a big shock.[/color]

It came as a shock to people *in* python-dev, too. It just
appeared one day as a fait accompli, without any opportunity
for discussion.

--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept,
University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand

http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg

[Anthony Baxter]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:34:33 +1200, Greg Ewing
<greg@cosc.cant erbury.ac.nz> wrote:[color=blue]
> It came as a shock to people *in* python-dev, too. It just
> appeared one day as a fait accompli, without any opportunity
> for discussion.[/color]

*shrug* I posted a couple of weeks before from Guido saying "here's
another syntax that Guido is leaning towards", and asking for a
volunteer to write a patch. Patch was done, there was a bit of
back-and-forth in the patch tracker on SF, then it came down to a
Guido decision.

I don't know what additional discussion on python-dev would have
accomplished. Almost no-one spoke up about the @syntax when I posted
the first note.

[Alex Martelli]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.i nvalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> aleaxit@yahoo.c om (Alex Martelli) writes:[color=green]
> > Type declarations make me cringe, but if I *had* to have them then 'b as
> > int' is the best syntax I could imagine for them offhand.[/color]
>
> b:int worked ok in Pascal.[/color]

And "b as integer" works quite reasonably in Visual Basic -- I'm not a
VB fan, by any means, but that particular tidbit of VB syntax sugar is
(IMHO) quite good.

A precedent for a dual use of AS, quite close to what we'd have here, is
in SQL. "SELECT foo AS bar" is a local renaming, just like Python's
"import foo as bar"; "CAST(foo AS integer)" is type coercion. Note that
both SQL uses are good parallel for some of the 'overloads' of 'AS' in
English;-).

All in all, the argument that declarator syntax 'might' end up doing
double use for typing purposes is hardly a strong deterrent to the use
of keyword 'as' in declarator syntax.


Alex

[Peter Otten]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

For J2

Peter Otten

Though I don't like "using".

[Leif K-Brooks]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Robert Brewer wrote:[color=blue]
> This is a call for all who wish to sign the proposal, either for,
> against, or abstaining.[/color]

For.

Leif K-Brooks.

[Richie Hindle]

Re: Call for signatories for J2


[Michael][color=blue]
> Patch against current CVS including __future__ statements/declarations
> has now been created, tested and uploaded to SourceForge. All tests
> pass.[/color]

Nice one - well done for all your work on this.
[color=blue]
> British Broadcasting Corporation, Research and Development[/color]

Is my license fee paying for this? If so, great! 8-) Makes for a much
better investment than Fame Academy.

--
Richie Hindle
richie@entrian. com

[Nick Jacobson]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

I'm not nuts about "using", but it's far better than "@" (as would be
lots of other keywords).

I vote FOR.

--Nick Jacobson

[Michael Sparks]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

Richie Hindle wrote:[color=blue]
> [Michael][color=green]
>> Patch against current CVS including __future__
>> statements/declarations has now been created, tested and uploaded to
>> SourceForge. All tests pass.[/color]
>
> Nice one - well done for all your work on this.[/color]

You're very welcome. I'd encourage anyone who's interested in python's
advancement to do the same, to be honest. The codebase is one of the
cleanest I've encountered and fairly easy to get started with, and it's
been a pleasure to work on. This experience will certainly encourage me
to participate more in future. (Probably on my own time though!)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> British Broadcasting Corporation, Research and Development[/color]
>
> Is my license fee paying for this? If so, great! 8-) Makes for a
> much better investment than Fame Academy.[/color]

Yep. (Well, as well as my own time at the weekend/evenings, but that's
common for open source :)

We have a (small) allocation in our time for "bright ideas" regarding
things that'll help the BBC in ways outside normal projects, and help
further tools etc we use. :-) I think I've probably used mine up for a
while now, but I think it's been worthwhile.

We use Python (amongst many other languages) in R&D for prototyping
ideas and I'm aware of various other parts of the BBC using python as
well, so by helping the python community we help ourselves and everyone
wins :) (Even if the patch is rejected it'll help resolve an argument!)

I couldn't *possibly* begin to comment on Fame Academy though, I might
say something I shouldn't ;-)

Best Regards,


Michael.
--
Michael.Sparks@ rd.bbc.co.uk
British Broadcasting Corporation, Research and Development
Kingswood Warren, Surrey KT20 6NP

This message (and any attachments) may contain personal views
which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.

[Nick Efford]

Re: Call for signatories for J2

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:42:15 -0700, Robert Brewer wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is a call for all who wish to sign the proposal, either for,
> against, or abstaining.[/color]

FOR. I could live with @ but I'm warming to J2, and you've
done some great work in presenting cogent arguments.

I'm with Alex M. in favouring 'as' over 'using'.


Nick Efford

[Richie Hindle]

Re: Call for signatories for J2


[Michael][color=blue]
> I'd encourage anyone who's interested in python's
> advancement to do the same, to be honest. The codebase is one of the
> cleanest I've encountered and fairly easy to get started with, and it's
> been a pleasure to work on.[/color]

Seconded. I've been there and done that (implemented the Set Next Statement
command for Python debuggers), and was pleasantly surprised at how clean and
comprehensible the code was - even in performance-sensitive areas like
ceval.c.
[color=blue]
> We have a (small) allocation in our time for "bright ideas" regarding
> things that'll help the BBC in ways outside normal projects, and help
> further tools etc we use.[/color]

A good policy. Nice to see that the Beeb's suits can think outside the box
(no pun intended 8-)

--
Richie Hindle
richie@entrian. com