Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > > >>André Thieme wrote: >> >> >>>On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python, >>>or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without >>>changing the sources of Python itself. >> >>Actually, an even bigger difficulty is the rejection of programmable >>syntax by Guido, both for the near and distant future: > > > Why is that a difficulty? Like Guido, I think that's an ADVANTAGE. > > >>"Programmable syntax is not in Python's future -- or at least it's not >>for Python 3000. The problem IMO is that everybody will abuse it to >>define their own language. And the problem with that is that it will >>fracture the Python community because nobody can read each other's code >>any more." >> >>http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/000286.html. > > > I couldn't have said it better myself.
No, but you could have quoted it more completely <g>: > But please save your breath. Programmable syntax is not in Python's > future -- or at least it's not for Python 3000. The problem IMO is > that everybody will abuse it to define their own language. And the > problem with that is that it will fracture the Python community > because nobody can read each other's code any more. The last time c.l.l and c.l.p went to friendly war over macros we kept wondering why macros were any less comprehensible than functions or classes. Here it is!: > > It's one thing to read code that calls an external function whose > meaning you have to guess from its name. It's quite another thing to > realize that you can't even know for sure where the function calls > are. Let's not go there. GvR seems to be thinking of something like the loop macro, which in its most commonly used syntax (it has two!) constitutes a distinct and unlispy language. If that is how macros were normally used (LOOP is quite abnormal) then, yikes, every macro could introduce a new language to be mastered. Uhhhh, that is not how macros are used normally. And it is a helluva lot of work to erect a new syntax as LOOP does, so it is not exactly tempting. So... is GvR being scared off by a straw man? The other possibility is that he is just trying to justify not doing it because it would be so hard without the regular syntax of Lisp, including parens, and with the JIT module resolution problem discussed earlier in his remarks. Understandable. A final good reason is, hey, we already /have/ Lisp, Python needs to be different in order not to get absorbed into the mother of all languages. ken -- Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm "Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific." -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
