On 2015-11-26 12:53, BartC wrote:
On 26/11/2015 01:52, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:23:36 PM UTC-5, BartC wrote:
On 26/11/2015 00:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It really, truly isn't. Your viewpoint is clouded by too much immersion in
crippled languages. *Old and obsolete versions* of crippled languages.
Dynamic creation of functions goes back to the 1950s.
It's funny then that the vast majority of top-level function definitions
I see in Python (and import and class statements too) are decidedly static.
I almost started to explain about how yes, Python is often written in
conservative static ways. I was going to mention that a little dynamic
nature goes a long way, and is never far from the surface in even the
simplest Python programs.
But I won't, because I'm not sure you're really interested. There's a
pattern here of people trying to explain Python to you, and eventually,
after many words, getting to some kind of shared understanding, only
for you to shrug it all off as a fad, or pocket-lining, or needless
complexity.
I'm sorry if I've been misunderstood.
I simply stated that Python's approach was novel. Steven D'Aprano then
responded by belittling my view, and effectively trashing every language
I've ever used.
[snip]
Well, it's not /that/ new.
Both Forth and PostScript define functions by execution.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
