Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling >> someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand >> the Python way. > "That is not the Python way", is just saying "Python doesn't have it" > in other words. So it can't be the answer to why python can't have > something.
No, it isn't. At least, it isn't when I use it. A language is more than just an accumulation of features. Well, a good language is more than just an accumulation of features - there's a philosophy underlying the language, that guides what features are added and what features aren't. Other languages have other philosophies, and wind up being good for other things. When I say "That's not the Python way", I mean that such a feature runs counter to my vision of Python's underlying philosophy. My vision isn't perfect - I've changed my mind about things: I used to want real macros, and I initially disliked list comprehensions. My vision doesn't agree with the developers - notably including Guido's - a lot of the time. On the other hand, they haven't done anything that strikes me as so wrong that I want to spend the time required working on Python rather than in Python to allow me to get it fixed. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
