On 11/27/2009 10:43 AM, The Music Guy wrote: > Next thing is, I can't see logically how the path of the discussion of > the proposal lead to the proposal being rejected. It looked like a lot > of people really liked the idea--including Guido himself--and several > examples were given about how it could be useful. The final verdict on > the matter just doesn't make logical sense in the context of the > discussions.
Guido withdraws his support for the proposal due to many people declaiming that setattr, getattr, and hasattr are too rarely used to justify a new syntax (especially since nobody can agree to a syntax that looks pythonic). Many other followed Guido's lead to formally turn their "not vote"'s, +0s, and +1s to -1s for the reason.
""" Guido wrote: > This seems to be the overwhelming feedback at this point, so I'm > withdrawing my support for the proposal. I hope that Ben can write up > a PEP and mark it rejected, to summarize the discussion; it's been a > useful lesson. Occasinoally, negative results are worth publishing! > > On 2/13/07, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote: >> On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote: >> > I'm still -1 on the basic idea, though, on the grounds of >> > YAGNIOE (You Aren't Going to Need It Often Enough). >> >> I can't really add much more than what's already be stated, but I >> echo Greg's sentiment. """ _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
