Added section about Guido's rejection comments.

pep-0224.txt

@@ -168,7 +168,77 @@ Possible Problems
     Besides generating a docstring for an otherwise undocumented
     attribute there is no breakage.
 
-    
+
+Comments from our BDFL
+
+    Early comments on the PEP from Guido:
+
+        I "kinda" like the idea of having attribute docstrings (meaning
+        it's not of great importance to me) but there are two things I
+        don't like in your current proposal:
+
+        1. The syntax you propose is too ambiguous: as you say,
+        stand-alone string literal are used for other purposes and could
+        suddenly become attribute docstrings.
+
+        2. I don't like the access method either (__doc_<attrname>__).
+
+    The author's reply:
+
+        > 1. The syntax you propose is too ambiguous: as you say, stand-alone
+        >    string literal are used for other purposes and could suddenly
+        >    become attribute docstrings.
+
+        This can be fixed by introducing some extra checks in the
+        compiler to reset the "doc attribute" flag in the compiler
+        struct.
+
+        > 2. I don't like the access method either (__doc_<attrname>__).
+
+        Any other name will do. It will only have to match these
+        criteria:
+
+        * must start with two underscores (to match __doc__)
+        * must be extractable using some form of inspection (e.g. by using
+          a naming convention which includes some fixed name part)
+        * must be compatible with class inheritence (i.e. should be
+          stored as attribute)
+
+    Later on in March, Guido pronounced on this PEP in March 2001 (on
+    python-dev). Here are his reasons for rejection mentioned in
+    private mail to the author of this PEP:
+
+        ...
+
+        It might be useful, but I really hate the proposed syntax.
+
+            a = 1
+            "foo bar"
+            b = 1
+
+        I really have no way to know whether "foo bar" is a docstring
+        for a or for b.
+
+        ...
+        
+        You can use this convention:
+
+            a = 1
+            __doc_a__ = "doc string for a"
+
+        This makes it available at runtime.
+
+        > Are you completely opposed to adding attribute documentation
+        > to Python or is it just the way the implementation works ? I
+        > find the syntax proposed in the PEP very intuitive and many
+        > other users on c.l.p and in private emails have supported it
+        > at the time I wrote the PEP.
+
+        It's not the implementation, it's the syntax.  It doesn't
+        convey a clear enough coupling between the variable and the
+        doc string.
+
+        
 Copyright
 
     This document has been placed in the Public Domain.