On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:41:24 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
>> There are at least 2 posts a month by someone who decides that they
>> want to re-wire Python syntax. Usually it's because of some particular
>> idiom they're used to in another language,
>
> And python does not use idioms from other languages?
It does. So what? Does that mean any idiom from any other language makes
sense in Python?
>> in other cases it's because they've got some particular issue with
>> "consistency".
>
> My impression was that "consistency" was important to Python.
It is but to quote a headline from the Python style guide: `A Foolish
Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds`.
> "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to keep
> referring to the manual. Things work the way I expect them to work.
I expect meaningful function names in tracebacks.
>> The ideas are *never* fully thought out or materialized, and they
>> invariably invite scorn from the user community.
>
> Of course, they're thought out: They're stolen from another language.
> Specifically, the language in which I am most productive.
They are not thought out. You just ripped an aspect from that other
language and threw it into a Python environment. This doesn't mean it
will fit into the language or scales beyond the small toy examples. What
about function names in tracebacks? What about nesting these anonymous
multiline functions? What about the impact on the grammar?
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
