This discussion has gone in more circles than Earth has gone 'round the Sun, but it seems you should consider the following:
1) Sequences and functions serve fundamentally different purposes in Python. One is for containing objects, the other is for executing an action. (And yes, I'm aware that these concepts can differ in other contexts. But we're talking about Python.) 2) It seems--at least to me--a bit dubious to change an entire general purpose programming language to suit a very limited--and frankly strange--use case. 3) You'd probably be better off making a very simple and concise domain specific language. You could do whatever you want with syntax--in the case of a cell phone, I would think the less punctuation you have, the better. Your main goal seems to be speed or ease of input, so perhaps a very abbreviated syntax would be more important than being able to read the code as if it were English, as is the case in Python--the tradeoff here being more time spent reading documentation and more time spent learning syntax. You also might stand to benefit from this move if you ever decide to implement this software in something other than Python. Specifically, not requiring parentheses for function calls would probably be a nice start, and very short built-in names might also be helpful. Again, this is a tradeoff between readability and speed of input. You'd also have to spend more time implementing a parser of some sort. This could very well outweigh any benefits involved, depending on your time frame. But to reiterate the most obvious point: in your context, [:] is just notation for copying a sequence, so c[:]() would have *exactly* the same effect as c(). If it helps, you can think of [:] being just like writing .copy() for dictionaries: it makes a shallow copy, nothing more. Now think about that while remembering that sequences and functions serve different purposes in Python and thus have different semantics. There's a reason this isn't implemented in Python: it would be confusing beyond belief at first sight. And there's already perfectly good syntax for this: "for func in funcs: func()" Being able to write code quickly on a cell phone is not a goal of Python. That's your goal. On 5/30/07, Warren Stringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I want to call every object in a tupple, like so: > > #------------------------------------------ > def a: print 'a' > def b: print 'b' > c = (a,b) > > >>>c[:]() # i wanna > TypeError: 'tupple' object is not callable > > >>>c[0]() # expected > a > >>>c[:][0] # huh? > a > >>> [i() for i in c] # too long and ...huh? > a > b > [None,None] > #------------------------------------------ > > Why? Because I want to make Python calls from a cell phone. > Every keystroke is precious; even list comprehension is too much. > > Is there something obvious that I'm missing? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
