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