Seebs wrote:
> On 2011-08-10, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And if we require {} then truly free indentation should be OK too! But
>> it wouldn't be Python any more.
>
> Would it really not be Python at all?
Of course it wouldn't be. Every function, class, if, while, for,
try...except block etc. in existing Python code would be illegal if {} were
required. This would be an order of magnitude bigger change than going from
Python 2 to 3, where the biggest syntax change is that print is no longer a
statement.
Even more so if ; were to become required, as suggested by the Original
Poster.
> I've seen bits of code in preprocessing-based "Python with {}" type
> things, and they still look like Python to me, only they favor explicit
> over implicit a little more strongly.
"Looks like" Python does not equal "is Python". Cobra looks like Python, as
do Boo, Groovy and Ruby, or OCaml with "twt" turned on ("the whitespace
thing"). The similarities are especially strong for Boo and Cobra, but
there is no doubt that they are different languages.
In general, languages that aim to look like executable pseudo-code will
converge on a similar look, because executable pseudo-code tends to be
based on natural language (usually English) and mathematics syntax.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
