Indeed, the fact that many MANY more people are familiar with SQL than with Haskell may be the strongest practical objection to this choice of syntax sugar; the WHERE clause in an SQL SELECT has such wildly different semantics from Haskell's "where" that it might engender huge amounts of confusion. I.e., reasoning by analogy with SQL only, one might reasonably expect that minor syntax variations on:
print a, b where a = b
could mean roughly the same as "if a==b: print a, b", rather than
hmm... SQL-ish associations are good too, if you think a little deeper then common post-effect of using SQL "where" keyword.
print a, b where a = b
means a==b in statement "print a, b"
roughly the same as:
a = b print a, b
I wonder if 'with', which GvR is already on record as wanting to introduce in 3.0, might not be overloaded instead.
using 'with', is some way unnatural for my point of view (may be because translations of 'with' and 'where' into russian, are way different and 'where' translation reads as natural language while 'with' does not).
I'd like to keep 'where' keyword for proposal, but semantics are more important, so in case I do not mind for other keyword.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
