On 10 Des, 00:00, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > Go right ahead. Write your experimental language, and if people like it, > they'll use it. That's what Guido did, all those years ago. But don't > turn Python into a hodgepodge of "features" that most people consider > misfeatures.
If you consult the public record, you'll see that I'm probably more conservative than most when it comes to adding features. Indeed, one of the principal benefits I see in Python 3.0 is that the hordes of people wanting to add new stuff to Python will now focus on that flavour of the language and not Python 2.x. However, as I pointed out in another message, keyword conflicts have been a problem for the language designers for some time, and more powerful parser technology might have been able to help out. [...] > I think it is childish to reject the Zen just because it's the Zen. Good > advice doesn't cease to be good advice just because people tell you it's > good advice, even if some people are awfully strident about it. I object to the Zen being trotted out every time someone questions any aspect of Python's design (language or implementation) which isn't being reworked elsewhere (say, in Python 3, where apparently the Zen can be suspended), especially when the parts of the Zen being quoted lack pertinence when compared to a properly formulated response to the original inquiry. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
