R
Robert Brewer
There's a semi-final version of the J2 proposal available:
http://www.aminus.org/rbre/python/pydec.html
I think we've heard all the nits by now, and any paragraphs which I felt
were weak have been rewritten. Important changes since 0.2.1:
1) There's a new Conclusion.
2) At Guido's request, I removed "wiggle room" with an explicit
statement in the intro: anything not addressed in the proposal defaults
to the @pie implementation currently in CVS. There's a list of what is
outside the scope of the proposal.
3) I softened the recommendation of the keyword "using" a smidgen
(mostly downplaying argument III over the other two).
4) The number of proposed grammars is now one (there were two).
If I had another 4 hours or so
I'd rewrite it in more direct
language. Boy, is it academic in tone--my great weakness. Meh.
At this time, I'd like to call for negative signatories. That is, if you
believe the @pie syntax is better than suite-and-keyword, please drop me
an email, either privately or on the list. I'd like your full name, and
*some* indication of why you are rejecting it. One short sentence is
enough, but if you want to write more, that's fine. I'll try to merge
the rejection comments into a readable summary in that section of the
document.
Please don't sign it yet if you favor the proposal. I'd like a day to
consider the rejection notices. I'm equally open to doing more rewriting
to accomodate the blockers, or freezing it as it stands--it depends to a
large extent on the responses I get from the detractors in the next 24
hours. If there are no reconsiderations, I'll call for positive
signatories (those in favor) tomorrow.
I think we have a good chance of success, where Guido can get a clear
picture of the situation and make a balanced decision. Thanks again to
those who suggested syntax, started polls, managed threads, wrote code
(!) and commented on the draft.
Robert Brewer
MIS
Amor Ministries
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.aminus.org/rbre/python/pydec.html
I think we've heard all the nits by now, and any paragraphs which I felt
were weak have been rewritten. Important changes since 0.2.1:
1) There's a new Conclusion.
2) At Guido's request, I removed "wiggle room" with an explicit
statement in the intro: anything not addressed in the proposal defaults
to the @pie implementation currently in CVS. There's a list of what is
outside the scope of the proposal.
3) I softened the recommendation of the keyword "using" a smidgen
(mostly downplaying argument III over the other two).
4) The number of proposed grammars is now one (there were two).
If I had another 4 hours or so
I'd rewrite it in more directlanguage. Boy, is it academic in tone--my great weakness. Meh.
At this time, I'd like to call for negative signatories. That is, if you
believe the @pie syntax is better than suite-and-keyword, please drop me
an email, either privately or on the list. I'd like your full name, and
*some* indication of why you are rejecting it. One short sentence is
enough, but if you want to write more, that's fine. I'll try to merge
the rejection comments into a readable summary in that section of the
document.
Please don't sign it yet if you favor the proposal. I'd like a day to
consider the rejection notices. I'm equally open to doing more rewriting
to accomodate the blockers, or freezing it as it stands--it depends to a
large extent on the responses I get from the detractors in the next 24
hours. If there are no reconsiderations, I'll call for positive
signatories (those in favor) tomorrow.
I think we have a good chance of success, where Guido can get a clear
picture of the situation and make a balanced decision. Thanks again to
those who suggested syntax, started polls, managed threads, wrote code
(!) and commented on the draft.
Robert Brewer
MIS
Amor Ministries
(e-mail address removed)