Fredrik Lundh wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Slashdot there is a discussion about the future C#3.0: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/05/09/18/0545217.shtml?tid=109&tid=8 > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/future/ > > "The extensions enable construction of compositional APIs that > have equal expressive power of query languages in domains such > as relational databases and XML." > > > There are many differences, but it looks a bit more like Python: > > http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/5/0/9503e33e-fde6-4aed-b5d0-ffe749822f1b/csharp%203.0%20specification.doc > > meanwhile, over in python-dev land: > > "Is anyone truly attached to nested tuple function parameters; 'def > fxn((a,b)): print a,b'? /.../ > > Would anyone really throw a huge fit if they went away? I am willing > to write a PEP for their removal in 2.6 with a deprecation in 2.5 if > people are up for it." > > </F>
I won't get nervous if they will be refused in their poor current state but I would get excited if they will be extended to something becoming close to algebraic data types enabling pattern matching. Maybe it's an irony of the Python development process that it tries to refuse functional programming facilities in just a moment where mainstream languages start to embrace them. Besides C# also VisualBasic gets improved: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/967 For the Java platform Scala raises some attention too, after the failure of the Java design team of integrating generics in a clean and comprehensible way with the existing language. Here is Scalas attempt for pattern matching called "case classes": http://scala.epfl.ch/intro/caseclasses.html I do think that gimmicks, syntax permutations and refusals of so called "Python warts" are not sufficient to preserve language attraction in a competing field that tries to make fast progress. Kay -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
