Hm, one thing my syntax does, I just noticed, is allow you to pass several thunks to a thunk-accepter, if desired, e.g., (parenthesizing this time, rather than ending ():<suite> with dedented comma)
each( ((i): # normal thunk print i), ((j): # alternative thunk rejectlist.append(j)), [1,2])
<snip>
I see that it might be nice to be able to use multiple thunks, and to be able to specify the positions in the argument list of thunks, but I think allowing a suite inside parentheses is pretty ugly. One reason is that it is difficult to see where the suite ends and where the argument list begins again. I'm not sure even what the syntax would be exactly. I suppose the suite would always have to be inside its own parentheses? Also, you wind up with these closing parentheses far away from their corresponding open parentheses, which is also not pretty. It's getting too Lisp-like for my tastes.
-Brian
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
