Paul Rubin wrote: > I don't think this is a valid objection. Python is already full of > syntactic sugar like indentation-based block structure, infix > operators, statements with keyword-dependent syntax, etc. It's that > very sugar that attracts programmers to Python away from comparatively > sugarless languages like Scheme. Indeed, Python is considered by many > to be a sweet language to program in, and they mean that in a nice > way. > > If you want, you can think of it as "flavor" rather than "sugar". We > aren't after syntactic minimalism or we'd be using Scheme. The > criterion for adding something like this to Python should be whether > makes the language taste better or not.
I don't know, most of the syntactic sugar I see in Python brings something to the language, or trivialize the generation of structures and constructs that may be complex or awkward without it, it has a natural, honey-ish sweetness full of flavor, it does not taste like some cancer-spawning artificial sweetener ;-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
