On Mar 31, 3:30 am, CTO <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the one hand, I can 110% see why you want to reduce boilerplate > code and provide a discoverable, common mechanism for automating the > two and three-quarters parsers that a lot of applications have to > write to handle a config file, CLI, and/or registry values, but why > introduce a syntax for it? A module would do just fine in terms of > function. Are you worried about the look of it, or do you want to make > a change to make it seem more "mainstream"? I don't see the > rationale.
Syntax is kind of a rubbery term. I just mean that there should be a clear and easy way to do it, that it should be considered a basic service, and that if the best way to satisfy all the goals is to integrate it directly into the language, that shouldn't be shied away from. The example that I have on my blog post, I consider that 'syntax', even though it's implemented as a function, mainly just because it digs into the bytecode and modifies the normal way a function is evaluated (the function's value is determined by where the output would go). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
