Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr> writes: > And that's the problem : what Paul suggests are not "improvements" but > radical design changes.
Eh? I think of them as moderate and incremental improvements, in a direction that Python is already moving in. Radical would be something like a full-scale static type system. > I really wonder why peoples that seems to dislike one of the central > features of Python - it's dynamism - still use it (assuming of > course they are free to choose another language). I certainly don't think dynamism is central to Python. In what I see as well-developed Python programming style, it's something that is only rarely used in any important way. I'd spend much less time debugging if I got compiler warnings whenever I used dynamism without a suitable annotation. The 1% of the time where I really want to use dynamism I don't see any problem with putting in an appropriate decorator, superclass, or whatever. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
