On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:06:30 -0400, "George Sakkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Dave Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:42:34 -0500, Terry Hancock
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday 09 October 2005 07:50 am, phil hunt wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 01:05:12 -0500, Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >GvR's syntax has the advantage of making grammatical sense in English
>> >> >(i.e.
>> >> >reading it as written pretty much makes sense).
>> >>
>> >> I know, let's re-write Python to make it more like COBOL! That's
>> >> bound to be a winner!
>> >
>> >Whereas the "natural order" of "condition affirmative negative" is natural
>> >for what reason? That it is so in C?
>>
>> And Basic, and Fortran, and Lisp, and just about any programming
>> language you care to name, including python (if Condition: Affirmative
>> else: Negative).
>
>Block delimiters (curly braces, if/fi, begin/end, etc.) are also in just about
>any language but this
>didn't stop python using indentation instead, so what's your point ?
>Conformity and backwards
The point is order of execution. The condition is tested first, so it
should appear first. I can think of no other language besides Perl
where that is not the case. Admittedly, I don't know every other, or
even a large number, of other languages.
>compatibility should not be top priorities in language design; fortunately for
>python, they're not.
Conformity I'd agree with, backwards capatibility I strongly disagree.
Breaking existing programs is a Bad Thing(tm). All the code I wrote
for Python 1.52 still seems to work in 2.4.
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
