Fwd: [Python-Dev] Strawman decision: @decorator won't change

[Peter Otten]

I took the freedom to forward GvR's mail concerning decorator cosmetics.
I think you should know about it.

Peter

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Subject: [Python-Dev] Strawman decision: @decorator won't change
Date: Wednesday 15 September 2004 23:46
From: Guido van Rossum <gv********@gma il.com>
To: Python-Dev <py********@pyt hon.org>

Anthony Baxter asked me for a pronouncement on whether @decorator will
change to use some other character instead; I kept this open as a
possibility before 2.4b1 (which is tentatively scheduled for Oct 7th).
Given the near-complete silence following my rejection of the J2
alternative proposal, I don't expect there to be a massive popular
movement to change the character, but I admit I haven't looked for
responses outside python-dev.

Let's plan on doing the following. If in the next 7 days there's no
indication that some group of users wants to rally for a different
character, the decision to keep @ is made final on Sept 23. To change
the character, somebody will need to start rallying for a different
character, and be able to show signs of significant support by that
date.

The definition of "significan t support" is intentionally left open for
interpretation, I'll review the evidence on the 23rd.

--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

[Ville Vainio]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Otten <__*******@web. de> writes:

Peter> Let's plan on doing the following. If in the next 7 days
Peter> there's no indication that some group of users wants to
Peter> rally for a different character, the decision to keep @ is
Peter> made final on Sept 23. To change

Are we going to have another vote? Do people still care enough to
count?

If so, here's my vote for '|' :-).

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

[Daniel Dittmar]

Peter Otten wrote:

Anthony Baxter asked me for a pronouncement on whether @decorator will
change to use some other character instead; I kept this open as a

And if will be pronounced
- mouche (= french for beauty spot): if you like the syntax
- wart: if you don't

Daniel

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:59:12 +0200, Peter Otten wrote:

Let's plan on doing the following. If in the next 7 days there's no
indication that some group of users wants to rally for a different
character, the decision to keep @ is made final on Sept 23. To change
the character, somebody will need to start rallying for a different
character, and be able to show signs of significant support by that
date.

Hmmmm... what's the Unicode point for the Chinese ideogram closest in
meaning to "decorator" ? Combines all the advantages of "one character"
with all the advantages of "descriptiv e keyword" all at once.

What possible counter-arguments could be brought to bear?

All-the-keywords-should-be-Unicode-Chinese-ly yrs,
Jeremy Bowers

[Andrew Dalke]

Jeremy Bowers wrote:

What possible counter-arguments could be brought to bear?

All-the-keywords-should-be-Unicode-Chinese-ly yrs,

Traditional or simplified?

:)

Andrew
da***@dalkescie ntific.com

[Bengt Richter]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:55:24 GMT, Andrew Dalke <ad****@mindspr ing.com> wrote:

Jeremy Bowers wrote:

What possible counter-arguments could be brought to bear?

All-the-keywords-should-be-Unicode-Chinese-ly yrs,

Traditional or simplified?

:)

Is that a di-glyph suggestion? (IOW, why a _single_ character to replace '@' ?)

Regards,
Bengt Richter

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:07:42 +0000, Bengt Richter wrote:

Is that a di-glyph suggestion? (IOW, why a _single_ character to replace '@' ?)

Because that's what Guido is calling for.

Given that this has been the majority of discussion on the topic, I'd
hazard a guess that the '@' is going to stick. :-)

[Paul McGuire]

"Peter Otten" <__*******@web. de> wrote in message
news:ci******** *****@news.t-online.com...

I took the freedom to forward GvR's mail concerning decorator cosmetics.
I think you should know about it.

Peter

Why? Sounds like the same rigged rules as before. Who wants to burn up any
more cycles on this?

I don't have a problem with GvR making his decisions about the language -
it's his. I do have a problem with his asking for input, under terms that
are so unlikely to permit that input to have any influence, and then patting
himself on the back for polling the user community for their comments. And
he wonders at the "near-complete silence following my rejection of J2"???
(For that matter, why didn't Guido post this 7-day discussion period on
c.l.py himself? Makes one wonder how seriously he really wants any more
input.)

Ultimately, this choice will boil down to Guido's own sense of esthetics.
He has already dismissed/discounted arguments against '@' based on usage in
other tools or language implementations . And there is little sense in
trying to marshal argument and rhetoric on the
etymology/semantics/verbalizations/human factors of '@' vs. '|' vs. '>>' or
whatever - these go so far adrift into meta-space that they quickly lose
focus on the original topic, and thereby reinforce GvR's impression that
this discussion has no emerging consensus or coherence.

I and many others have offered our feedback (i.e., complained) that '@' is
an offense to the eye, a blot on Python's heretofore cleanness of syntax and
form, and implicit readability. '@' doesn't *mean* anything. At least '|'
brings a "pipe" semantic from Unix, or '^' evokes a "return" concept from
Smalltalk, or '>>' the notion of "stream" from C++. When I see '@', the
first thing I think of is e-mail, and the second thing I think of is an
invoice ("20 widgets @ $0.25 = $5.00").

So what? It all boils down to "I like 'X'", "Well, I like 'Y'", to "Thanks
for your feedback, the answer is '@'."

-- Paul

[Arthur]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:28:52 GMT, "Paul McGuire"
<pt***@austin.r r._bogus_.com> wrote:

"Peter Otten" <__*******@web. de> wrote in message
news:ci******* ******@news.t-online.com...

I took the freedom to forward GvR's mail concerning decorator cosmetics.
I think you should know about it.

Peter
Why? Sounds like the same rigged rules as before. Who wants to burn up any
more cycles on this?

snip
I and many others have offered our feedback (i.e., complained) that '@' is
an offense to the eye, a blot on Python's heretofore cleanness of syntax and
form, and implicit readability. '@' doesn't *mean* anything. At least '|'
brings a "pipe" semantic from Unix, or '^' evokes a "return" concept from
Smalltalk, or '>>' the notion of "stream" from C++. When I see '@', the
first thing I think of is e-mail, and the second thing I think of is an
invoice ("20 widgets @ $0.25 = $5.00").

So what? It all boils down to "I like 'X'", "Well, I like 'Y'", to "Thanks
for your feedback, the answer is '@'."

And were it opened for debate you would run into bizarre arguments in
its defense. Like mine.

That there a mechanism in Python described by a arbitrary word,
"decorator" and provoked by an arbitrary symbol '@'

The symbol *works*, as a sore thumb and a tacit admission of
something,

It is defended in this view by its anti-esthetic.

Having to put up with this kind of argument in its defense is perhaps
a good reason to not re-open the discussion.

Art

[Paul McGuire]

"Arthur" <aj******@opton line.com> wrote in message
news:15******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...
<snip>

And were it opened for debate you would run into bizarre arguments in
its defense. Like mine.
Well, it *is* opened for debate, so knock yourself out. The more bizarre
the better, I'd say.
That there a mechanism in Python described by a arbitrary word,
"decorator" and provoked by an arbitrary symbol '@'

The symbol *works*, as a sore thumb and a tacit admission of
something,
Why do STOP signs say STOP? Why not put an arbitrary @ sign on them, and
tell everyone it means STOP?

Your argument is equally valid for *any* symbol. Why choose this ugly blot?
This arbitrary symbology is the way of Perl and APL. I thought one of the
beauties of Python was that it doesn't impose this kind of obtusity on the
developer or maintainer.
It is defended in this view by its anti-esthetic.
Are you a Dada-ist? Is Python becoming the Dada language?
(http://arthistory.about.com/cs/arthi...one/a/dada.htm)
Having to put up with this kind of argument in its defense is perhaps
a good reason to not re-open the discussion.

This sounds like another way of saying "this is a silly argument, and we
would be better off without it." The point is, just about *all* the
arguments for this symbol or that will from here on *be* silly arguments.

-- Paul
''Suppose someone were to assert: The gostak distims the doshes. You do
not know what this means; nor do I. But if we assume that it is
English, we know that 'the doshes are distimmed by the gostak'. We
know too that 'one distimmer of doshes is a gostak' . If moreover,
the 'doshes are galloons', we know that 'some galloons are distimmed
by the gostak'. And so we may go on, and *so we often do go on.*''
From "The Meaning of Meaning" by C.K.Ogden and I.A. Richards