Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:11:04 +0100, Pierre Barbier de Reuille wrote: > > >>The problem, IMHO, is that way you need to declare "symbols" >>beforehands, that's what I was trying to avoid by requiring a new syntax. > > > ??? > > If you don't declare your symbols, how will you get the ones that you want? > > I don't understand why it is a problem to declare them first, and if it is > a problem, what your solution would be. >
Well, just as Python do not need variable declaration, you can just *use* them ... in dynamic languages using symbols, they just get created when used (i.e. have a look at LISP or Ruby). > [snip] > > >>Well, I don't think enumarated objects ARE symbols. I can see two >>"problems" : >> 1 - in the implementation, trying to compare values from different >>groups raises an error instead of simply returning "False" (easy to fix ...) > > > As you say, that's easy to fix. > > >> 2 - You have to declare these enumerable variables, which is not >>pythonic IMO (impossible to fix ... needs complete redesign) > > > Are you suggesting that the Python language designers should somehow > predict every possible symbol that anyone in the world might ever need, > and build them into the language as predefined things? > > If that is not what you mean, can you explain please, because I'm confused. > Well, the best I can propose is for you to read the discussion with Mike Meyer. He pointer out the flaws in my proposal and we're trying to precise things. Pierre -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
