On Feb 26, 11:27 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > It's Unpythonic to compile a machine instruction out of a script. But
> > maybe in the right situations, with the right constraints on a
> > function, certain chunks could be native, almost like a mini-
> > compilation. How much machine instruction do you want to support?
>
> This language is meant for newbies, or for very quick scripts, or for
> less bug-prone code, so optimizations are just a way to avoid such
> programs run 5 times slower than Ruby ones ;-)
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
My first thought is to accept ambiguities, and then disambiguate them
at first compile. Whether you want to record the disambiguations in
the script itself ("do not modify -here-"-style), or an annotation
file, could be optional, and could be both. Queueing an example... .
You could lose a bunch of the parentheses too, oy.
"It looks like you mean, 'if "jackson" exists in namesmap', but there
is also a 'namesmap' folder in the current working directory. Enter
(1) for dictionary, (2) for file system."
[snip]
if 'jackson' in namesmap:
->
if 'jackson' in namesmap: #namesmap.__getitem__
[snip]
automatically.
And while you're at it, get us Starcrafters a command-line interface.
build 3 new barracks at last click location
produce at capacity 30% marines, 20% seige tanks, 10% medics
attack hotspot 9 in attack formation d
def d( army, enemy, terrain ):. ha?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
