"Heiko Wundram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 20. März 2005 22:22 schrieb George Sakkis:
> > Once more, the 2D/3D example was just that, an example; my point was not to
> > find a specific solution to a specific problem.
>
> And my point being: it's simple enough to give a general recipe (which my
> example was) without extending Python's syntax, so why extend the syntax and
> not just use a solution derived from that recipe that's working now (and is
> backwards compatible at least to 2.3), and which is also clear in itself?
>
> I'm not saying that your syntax looks "strange" or "bad", but there are means
> to do what you want to do now, without cumbersome syntax or duplicating code,
> and as such I'm -1 on syntactic sugar (TOWTDI and all)...
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but I think introducing syntax is the wrong
> solution to a non-existant problem with the language.
The way I see it, it's closer to applying existing syntax (from function
signatures) in a new
context than introducing new syntax, but that's a detail. I guess it's a matter
of personal
preference to syntactic sugar then. Still, python is rife with syntactic sugar:
iterators, default
function arguments, *varargs, **kwdargs, [list]/(tuple)/{dict} literals,
recently @decorators, and
more. If syntactic sugar didn't matter, we would be happy with scheme's syntax.
George
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
