So...
Python is already flexible. It supports use of (1) tabs, (2) space or
(3) a mix of tabs and space to indicate scope.
Some people think this is too flexible. It should be cut back to tabs
or spaces. The fewer people comfortable with Python, the better. It's
better to be "right" than popu
> Just because a few people dislike something,
> doesn't make it a defect.
Actually, it does. Unless you're in the business of building security
systems. Then the goals are reversed.
I can accept that you like scope by indent and don't want to see any
changes gong forward. That's your choice.
> Try this:: from __future__ import braces
>>> from __future__ import braces
File "", line 1
SyntaxError: not a chance
>>>
Thanks, that's funny.
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> the only programming language, for
> example, which does not need documentation is the natural language, and
> that contains so many ambiguities that humans often get instructions wrong.
Natural languag (e.g. English) does not need documentation? Was there
a shortage of big fat text books in y
> But you don't want it to be Python, is all.
No, the opposite. I'm pro-Python but anti-stagnant, anti-dogma and
anti-bad design.
If Python never changes that will be okay too. It *is* great!
John
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> Meanwhile, see Tools/scripts/pindent.py
Yes, thanks, that's very close to what I was thinking of.
If it just went a little further and used semi-colons and braces then
it would be complete. Granted, that might still not be enough for
people who don't like scope by indent. It would be interes
> If someone doesn't want
> to give Python a second look because of their own bigoted ideas, I say Python
> doesn't want that type of person to begin with.
Some days I feel the same way. I've described Python as a filter where
only the best get through. That's leads to a concentration of talent
> even a single character (like an opening or closing bracket or a semicolon)
> is an indication that the design can be improved.
Close, there are two principles for good design: Afford proper use and
Don't afford improper use. I could argue that not having to type extra
characters falls into t
> a decent description or tutorial... is better
Sound good but... we're programmers, not documentation specialist or
motivational speakers. Why, when I suggest fixing a design defect with
code, do so many programmers want to respond with... documentation and
arguments instead of code?
>From "T
> It seems to me that the tabs-vs-spaces thing is really about who controls
the indentation: with spaces, it's the writer, and with tabs, it's the
reader.
Agreed.
> if [scope by indent] really is scaring off
potential converts, then a dumbed-down dialect of python which uses
curly
brackets and
> you're about 10 years late
The same could be said for hoping that the GIL will be eliminated.
Utterly hopeless.
Until... there was PyPy. Maybe now it's not so hopeless.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
This is amazing.
Python could take over the programming world except one of it's best
features (scope by indent) is a primary reason why it never will. It's
not flexible enough. A large percentage of programmers won't even try
the language.
And even amongst Python enthusiast who appreciate the
Here it is again... Python bypassed/discounted because, of all things,
scoping by indentation!?!?
This used to surprise me. Until I hear more and more otherwise
reasonable programmers list this as their number one reason for
shunning Python.
I gauge design defects by how much after market
discu
13 matches
Mail list logo
