On Jul 29, 2:27 am, Iain King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 29, 5:33 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 28, 8:44 pm, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 29, 4:46 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > As I said, I could write a pre-processor myself to > > > > implement it in less than a day. > > > > So WHY DON'T YOU WRITE IT ALREADY? > > > I'm working on something else right now if you don't mind, but I'll > > get to it in good time. > > > Conceptually, the matter is simple. All I need to do is to grab the > > first formal argument of each def, then search for occurrences of any > > word in the body of the def that starts with a dot, and insert that > > first argument in front of it. > > > I expect the "hard" part will be breaking up the body of the def into > > "words." I could just split each line on white space, except for > > situations like > > > x+=.zzz > > > So I need to account for the fact that operators do not need to be > > surrounded by spaces. That's the hardest part I can think of off the > > top of my head. > > > Maybe I'll encounter an insurmountable problem and realize that the > > idea can't work in general. If so, then so be it. Certainly, no one on > > this thread has anticipated such a problem. Had someone pointed out an > > actual technical problem with the idea, I would have gladly thanked > > them. But I got a load of irrelevant crap instead, not to mention > > being addressed as "boy." > > > > If you're meeting so much resistance to your idea, why not scratch > > > your own damn itch and just do it? > > > > Or doesn't that afford you as many chances to insult others while > > > feeling smugly superior? > > > This coming from a guy who insulted my reading comprehension ability > > -- when he was the one who was wrong! > > Are you actually this stupid? I mean, you were entertaining while you > were mouthing of and insulting your betters, but now you're gonna > complain the second anyone insults you (and I mean, 'boy' - what an > insult!). Never mind that you're never gonna get off your ass to > write a PEP, which would be rejected on language design grounds anyway > (as demonstrated by alex23's link - the one you aren't > comprehending). The most irritating thing is that I like the idea of > being able to use '.x = 10' type notation (and have been for a long > time), but the person arguing for it is an insufferable buffoon who's > too dense to understand a cogent argument, never mind make one. So > great, thanks, the chances of this (or a VB 'with'-like 'using' > keyword) ever making it into the language get smaller every time you > fire up your keyboard. Nice work. > > Iain > > p.s. am looking forward to your post whining about the invalid reasons > your PEP got rejected, in the slim hope you actually write one.
+1 POTW Thanks for the gentle prod! I'm on it -- well, soon anyway. I have to consciously avoid thinking about this post whenever I consume a beverage! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
