In article <mailman.3309.1247861321.8015.python-l...@python.org>,
J. Cliff Dyer <j...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 20:53 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> Because unlike in algol 68 in python whitespace is relevant,
>> we could get by with requiring whitespace:
>> x= -q # okay
>> a<b and -a<c and -b < -d # okay
>> 8 ** -2 # okay
>
>This is actually quite thoroughly untrue. In python, *indentation* is
>significant. Whitespace (internal to a line) is not. You can even call
>methods like this if you want:
You totally don't get it. You describe how python is now.
I propose a change to be made to python. Small wonder that that is
different from what it is now.
>
>>>> s = 'abc'
>>>> s . upper()
>ABC
You prove nothing by giving examples.
You can disprove by giving one counter example,
here it goes.
Whitespace (internal to a line) is significant.
In Python you cannot change
xleftgoing = 123000000
to
x left going = 123 000 000
(You can in Algol68)
>Obviously, that's A Bad Idea(tm), but python's parser won't stop you.
What is a bad idea?
Apparently you are not talking about my idea of changing the parser.
("Pythons parser won't stop you from changing the parser" doesn't
make sense.)
>The ++ operator gotcha is so minor that I can't remember anyone actually
>asking about it on the list (who was actually facing it as a
>problem--this thread was started by idle speculation). Can we not
>change the language syntax to address non-issues?
As other languages have an Eleventh Commandment against concatenating
operators, the larger issue is hardly futile.
>
>Practicality beats purity, a.k.a. don't you have something better to do?
I'm having a great time, thank you!
>Cheers,
>Cliff
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
alb...@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
