On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 20:33:49 -0800, Westley Martínez wrote: > On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 18:37 -0800, John Nagle wrote: >> It's worth having some syntax for constants. I'd suggest >> using "let":
+1 on syntax for constants. -0 for "let". I'd prefer something more explicit, like "const". > I'm against constants, for the purpose of "programmers should be smart > enough to not set a variable to another value that should be static", Most programmers are smart enough not to rebind names which should be constant. The problem is, how do you know which names should be constant? A naming convention like ALL_CAPITALS helps, but not everybody sticks to the convention. Also, if constants are enforced by the compiler, that opens the door for many optimizations that currently Python can't do even in principle. > but if Python were to have constants I think it would be better to use > something more descriptive than 'let'. Also, because the defined > constant is static, I think it would be better to use 'is' instead of > '='. Example: No, we're talking about assignment, not a comparison operator. The `is` operator is equivalent to `==`, equals, not assignment. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
