Craig Ringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > Couldn't agree more. One of the things I find most valuable about Python > is the ability to use functional style where it's the most appropriate > tool to solve a problem - WITHOUT being locked into a pure-functional > purist language where I have to fight the language to get other things > done.
By the way, if that's very important to you, you might enjoy Mozart (http://www.mozart-oz.org/) -- I'm looking at it and it does appear to go even further in this specific regard (rich support for multi - paradigm programming). It's also blessed with a great book, <http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/book.html> -- I've just started browsing it, but it appears to be worthy of being called "SICP for the 21st century"...!-). Just like SICP made it worthwhile to learn a little Scheme even if you'd never use it in production, so does CTMCP (acronym for this new book by Van Roy and Haridi) work for Oz, it appears to me. > def callfunc(function,args): > return apply(function,args) > > and > > def callfunc(function,args): > return function(*args) > > its just an (IMO trivial) difference in syntax. I'd be interested in > knowing if there is in fact more to it than this. No, the semantics are indeed the same. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
