Stefan Behnel wrote: > Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> I'll let you and Robert go on with the syntax discussion without me. >> >> However I have my doubts on whether you'll get anywhere, I maintain that >> this is likely a matter of taste in the end, with no objectively "right" >> or "wrong" decision. >> >> Are you OK with leaving the issue to popular vote? > > You mean as in the case of decorator support for Python? ;) > > I think what this would mean is that all listening numerics people would > go "yes, I want a short syntax as in NumPy" and everyone else would go > "hmmm, I don't care, so I don't vote". I don't think that would give us a > meaningfull poll result.
You may be right in it not giving us new information, though I don't see why you can't give this premise more weight: The people who are actually likely to care either way are likely to disagree with you. Anyway, I'll be really blunt. I don't see another week of discussions changing anybody's opinion here, it's already been discussed and valid points have been raised on both sides. Humans have been in deadlocks like this before though; common solutions include - Meritocracy (whoever does the feature decides) - Rule be the elite (lead developer majority) - Democracy (mailing list majority) Either way, your view about int[:,:] loose. Given this, I don't see why we have to drag on the discussion even further, unless this is *very* important to you. (As I said, I'd rather pull the whole thing than actually upset you.) -- Dag Sverre _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
