Guido van Rossum wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>>
>>> What are the odds of this thing going in?
>>
>> I don't know. Guido has said nothing about it so far this
>> time round, and his is the only opinion that matters in the
>> end.
> 
> I'd rather stay silent until a PEP exists, but I should point out that
> last time '@' was considered as a new operator, that character had no
> uses in the language at all. Now it is the decorator marker. Therefore
> it may not be so attractive any more.

Others have indicated already how pep 225 seems to be the best current summary 
of this issue.  Here's a concrete proposal:  the SciPy conference, where a lot 
of people with a direct stake on this mattter will be present, will be held 
very soon (August 19-24 at Caltech):

http://conference.scipy.org/

I am hereby volunteering to try to organize a BOF session at the conference on 
this topic, and can come back later with the summary.  I'm also scheduled to 
give a talk at BayPiggies on Numpy/Scipy soon after the conference, so that may 
be a good opportunity to have some further discussions in person with some of 
you.

It's probably worth noting that python is *really* growing in the scientific 
world.  A few weeks ago I ran a session on Python for science at the annual 
SIAM conference (the largest applied math conference in the country), with 
remarkable success:

http://fdoperez.blogspot.com/2008/07/python-tools-for-science-go-to-siam.html

(punchline: we were selected for the annual highlights - 
http://www.ams.org/ams/siam-2008.html#python).

This is just to show that python really matters to scientific users, and its 
impact is growing rapidly, as the tools mature and we reach critical mass so 
the network effects kick in.  It would be great to see this topic considered 
for the language in the 2.7/3.1 timeframe, and I'm willing to help with some of 
the legwork.

So if this idea sounds agreeable to python-dev, I'd need to know whether I 
should propose the BOF using pep 225 as a starting point, or if there are any 
other considerations on the matter I should be aware of (I've read this thread 
in full, but I just want to start on track since the BOF is a one-shot event).  
I'll obviously post this on the numpy/scipy mailing lists so those not coming 
to the conference can participate, but an all-hands BOF is an excellent 
opportunity to collect feedback and ideas from the community that is likely to 
care most about this feature.

Thanks,

f

_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to