> > The fact that you compare and criticise the simple annotations like > static or abstract with the much more powerful decorator concept shows > that, despite being the maintainer of a > soon-to-be-ruling-the-python-world Python 3 fork, lack understanding of > even the most basic language features. Which isn't exactly news.[1]
Don't you mean "lack appreciation for the non-basic language features"? static, class and abstract are basic language features that I appreciate. "decorators" have been in Python for only a small part of its existence, they aren't in the vast majority of languages (if any other language even has them) which means people write all kinds of software without them. Or rather, most of the software ever written didn't use decorators. Doesn't sound basic at all. > > Maybe you should start using python more and _then_ start discussions > about it's features, when you have good grounds and can provide viable > alternatives? But I guess that's a wish that won't be granted.... static and abstract keywords would seem to be very viable alternatives. Viable enough that several language designers used them. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
