Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:56:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: >Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> >> egold = 0: >> >> while egold < 10: >> >> if test(): >> >> ego1d = egold + 1 >> >> >> > >> > Oh come on. That is a completely contrived example, >> >>

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Well, that exactly is the point where we make the transition from "this > is how things work" to pure speculation. Everything starts with pure speculation. I had no intention of introducing the big type system here. I just think peop

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > ap.py:4: No global (test) found > > ap.py:5: Local variable (ego1d) not used > > Helen:/tmp alex$ > > > > If you're so typo-prone and averse to unittests that you consider this > > kind of issue to be a

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > ap.py:4: No global (test) found > ap.py:5: Local variable (ego1d) not used > Helen:/tmp alex$ > > If you're so typo-prone and averse to unittests that you consider this > kind of issue to be a serious problem, just use pychecker and get > informed about

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > >> egold = 0: > >> while egold < 10: > >> if test(): > >> ego1d = egold + 1 > >> > > > > Oh come on. That is a completely contrived example, > > No it is not. You may not have had any use for this > kind of code, but unfamiliary with

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> How about Lisp? It seems to do some good there, without getting in > the way. I don't know much about lisp. But the thing is that one of the most important data structures in python (and basically the only one in LISP), lists, are a big problem to type-checking if they aren't homogenous. So I g

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > When you want local variable in lisp you do : > > > > (let ((a 3)) (+ a 1)) > > Excep that's not a decleration, that's a binding. That's identical to > the Python fragment: > >a = 3 >return a + 1 > > except for the creation of the new sc

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Christophe" wrote: > I mean, why not ? Why does the compiler let me do that when you know > perfectly that that code is incorrect : > def f(): > return "a" + 5 probably because the following set is rather small: bugs caused by invalid operations involving only literals, that are not

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> > You just said "let's > > introduce something like any". I showed you existing implementations of > > such a concept that have problems. > > But as far as I can see that is a problem of the implementation > not necessarily of the concept. Without any concept, sure there can't be problems with

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Erlang? > > Guess what, worked with that, too :) And let me assure you - it does > have pretty much runtime type error issues. It's interpreted. Yes, it makes no attempt at being statically typed. It's like Python that way, AFAIK. > Easy cases

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Then argue against my ideas, and not your makings of it. >> >> If I just use 'ANY' and you fill that in with C void* like >> implementation and argue against that, then you are arguing >> against your own ghost

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Christophe wrote: > Fredrik Lundh a écrit : > >>"Christophe" wrote: >> >> >> >>>It's more of a "Nearly too late" type checking I would say. Not that I >>>complain but it would be great if there were also some automatic type >>>checking to catch a few errors as soon as possible. >> >> >>use assert

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > - FPs share their own set of problems - try writing a server. The > > have inherent troubles with event-driven programs. > > Erlang? Guess what, worked with that, too :) And let me assure you - it does have pretty much runtim

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - FPs share their own set of problems - try writing a server. The > have inherent troubles with event-driven programs. Erlang? > Still, FP is cool. But python too. And just attaching some > type-inference to python won't work. Yeah, I've figured

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> Now some of the Python-is-perfect crowd seems to suffer from a "Blub > paradox" (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlubParadox). They see annoying, > static typed languages like C and Java, and they see pleasant, > dynamically typed languages like Python, and conclude that static > types = annoying, when i

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > What this is about (to me at least) is the edit-debug cycle. Let's > say I write some Python code, using assert to validate datatypes. > Maybe I've made 4 errors. I then write a test function and run it. > Boom, the first assert fails. I fix the fir

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> It is not about falling back on generic declarartion, it is about > how such object will be treated. Diez seems to think that > strongly-typed language can only deal with generic declarations > by using something that allows circumventing the type system. No, I don't - now it's you who makes ass

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > Then argue against my ideas, and not your makings of it. > > If I just use 'ANY' and you fill that in with C void* like > implementation and argue against that, then you are arguing > against your own ghosts, but not against what I have in mind. Well, you didn't tell us wha

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > use assert as the soonest possible point. implementing "type gates" is > trivial, if you think you need them. What this is about (to me at least) is the edit-debug cycle. Let's say I write some Python code, using assert to validate datatypes. Maybe I

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Fredrik Lundh a écrit : > "Christophe" wrote: > > >>It's more of a "Nearly too late" type checking I would say. Not that I >>complain but it would be great if there were also some automatic type >>checking to catch a few errors as soon as possible. > > > use assert as the soonest possible point

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-07, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Why do you call this a JAVA Object or C void*? Why don't you call >> it a PYTHON object. It is this kind of reaction that IMO tells most >> opponents can't think outside the typesystems they have already >> seen and project the problem

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Christophe" wrote: > It's more of a "Nearly too late" type checking I would say. Not that I > complain but it would be great if there were also some automatic type > checking to catch a few errors as soon as possible. use assert as the soonest possible point. implementing "type gates" is trivia

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Roy Smith a écrit : > There's more to it than just that. Python's type checking is not just not > done at compile time, it's done as late in run time as possible. One might > call it just-in-time type checking. It's more of a "Nearly too late" type checking I would say. Not that I complain bu

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:01:00 -0400, Roy Smith wrote: > There's more to it than just that. Python's type checking is not just not > done at compile time, it's done as late in run time as possible. One might > call it just-in-time type checking. Well there you go then. Instead of pulling our ha

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-07, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Suppose we have a typesystem which has the type ANY, which would mean such an object could be any type. You could then have homogenous lists >>

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

"Ben Sizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's started to get very misleading - Python gives you plenty of > type-checking, as we all know, just not at compile-time. There's more to it than just that. Python's type checking is not just not done at compile time, it's done as late in run time as po

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Let's see if I understand what you're saying: > > C and Java: you get useful type checking except when you declare > a reference as type ANY. This is a shortcoming compared to: > > Python: where you get no useful type checking at all. > > That is not very convinci

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>In other words, you want Python to be strongly-typed, but sometimes >>you want to allow a reference to be to any object whatsoever. In which >>case you can't possibly do any sensible type-checking on it, so this >>new Python+ or what

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> Why do you call this a JAVA Object or C void*? Why don't you call > it a PYTHON object. It is this kind of reaction that IMO tells most > opponents can't think outside the typesystems they have already > seen and project the problems with those type systems on what > would happen with python shou

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is no proposal on the table. There's a discussion of how this > > stuff can work, and whether it's useful. As for how the compiler > > deals with imported modules, see for example Common Lisp or Haskell or > > ML--how do they do it? > > Except

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>In other words, you want Python to be strongly-typed, but sometimes >>you want to allow a reference to be to any object whatsoever. In which >>case you can't possibly do any sensible type-checking on it, so this >>new Python+ or what

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Without a clear idea of the nature of the proposal, it is impossible >>to assess it's costs and benefits. So could a proponent of optional >>declarations please provide a more clear proposal? > > > There is no proposal on the tabl

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In other words, you want Python to be strongly-typed, but sometimes > you want to allow a reference to be to any object whatsoever. In which > case you can't possibly do any sensible type-checking on it, so this > new Python+ or whatever you want to call i

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>Suppose we have a typesystem which has the type ANY, which would mean >>>such an object could be any type. You could then have homogenous lists >>>in the sense that all elements should be of the same declared

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Suppose we have a typesystem which has the type ANY, which would mean >> such an object could be any type. You could then have homogenous lists >> in the sense that all elements should be of the same declared type and >> at the same ti

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On 6 Oct 2005 06:44:41 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Op 2005-10-06, Bengt Richter schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On 5 Oct 2005 09:27:04 GMT, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> It also is one possibility to implement writable closures.

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Barbier de Reuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer a écrit : >> Pierre Barbier de Reuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Mike Meyer a écrit : Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Ron Adam wrote: > Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > >>Ron Adam wrote: >> >> >> >>>Is there a way to conditionally decorate? For example if __debug__ is >>>True, but not if it's False? I think I've asked this question before. (?) >> >> >>the decorator is a callable, so you can simply do, say >> >>fro

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Dans l'article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Meyer a écrit : > Pierre Barbier de Reuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mike Meyer a écrit : >>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:58:33 +, A

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Ron Adam wrote: > > >>Is there a way to conditionally decorate? For example if __debug__ is >>True, but not if it's False? I think I've asked this question before. (?) > > > the decorator is a callable, so you can simply do, say > > from somewhere import debugdeco

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin writes: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think we're using different definitions of statically typed >> here. A language that is statically typed doesn't *need* type >> inferencing - the types are all declared! Type determines the thypes >> by inf

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we're using different definitions of statically typed > here. A language that is statically typed doesn't *need* type > inferencing - the types are all declared! Type determines the thypes > by inferenceing them from an examination of the program.

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Ron Adam wrote: > Is there a way to conditionally decorate? For example if __debug__ is > True, but not if it's False? I think I've asked this question before. (?) the decorator is a callable, so you can simply do, say from somewhere import debugdecorator if not __debug__: deb

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Without a clear idea of the nature of the proposal, it is impossible > to assess it's costs and benefits. So could a proponent of optional > declarations please provide a more clear proposal? There is no proposal on the table. There's a discussion of ho

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Bengt Richter wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:10:58 GMT, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Looking at it from a different direction, how about adding a keyword to >>say, "from this point on, in this local name space, disallow new >>names". Then you can do... >> >>def few(x,y): >> a = 'a'

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Pierre Barbier de Reuille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mike Meyer a écrit : >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:58:33 +, Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> >>>Declarations also allow easier writabl

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Mike Meyer a écrit : > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:58:33 +, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> >>Declarations also allow easier writable closures. Since the declaration >>happens at a certain scope,

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> Suppose we have a typesystem which has the type ANY, which would mean > such an object could be any type. You could then have homogenous lists > in the sense that all elements should be of the same declared type and > at the same time mix all kind of type in a particular list, just > as python do

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> I can't help but feel that a lot of people have specific typechecking >> systems in mind and then conclude that the limits of such a symtem >> are inherent in typechecking itself. > > I've been writing a type-checker for my diploma

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> > I can't help but feel that a lot of people have specific typechecking > systems in mind and then conclude that the limits of such a symtem > are inherent in typechecking itself. I've been writing a type-checker for my diploma thesis for a functionnal programmming language. And it _is_ limite

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: >> Right now, the compiler DOES NOT examine the contents of the other >> modules. All it does is generate an IMPORT_NAME instruction which is >> evaluation during runtime. > > > > In that case the other module gets compiled when the IMPORT_NAME > instruction is executed.

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-06, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Sure, But allow me this silly analogy. >> >> Going out on a full test-drive will also reveal your tires are flat. >> So if you one has to be dropped, a full test drive or a tire check >> it would certainly be the tired check. But IMO

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> Sure, But allow me this silly analogy. > > Going out on a full test-drive will also reveal your tires are flat. > So if you one has to be dropped, a full test drive or a tire check > it would certainly be the tired check. But IMO the tire check > is still usefull. But you could write it as test

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm not trying to be silly. I am trying to get a handle on the > semantics that you are proposing. So we now have two requirements for > the new declaration syntax (please let me know if I'm wrong): > > o the variable must be declared > o the variable mu

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The value XML_NAMESPACE was imported from xml.dom, but the xml package is > kind of weird. XML_NAMESPACE defined both in xml.dom and in the > _xmlplus.dom package. The _xmlplus package is conditionally imported by the > xml package, and completely repla

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>OK. The Python compiler would check that the name is declared but it >>would not check that it is defined before use? So this would be >>acceptable: >> >>def foo(): >> local x >> return x > > > Come on, you are asking sill

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: >> from xml.dom import * >> >> def do_add(x, y): >> return '%s://%s' % (x, y) >> >> def do_something(node): >> if node.namespace == XML_NAMESPACE: >> return do_add('http://', node.namespace) >> elif node.namespace == ... >> ... >> > > IMO your var

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-05, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> This is naive. Testing doesn't guarantee anything. If this is what you >> think about testing, then testing gives you a false impression of >> security. Maybe we should drop testing. > > Typechecking is done by a reduced lamda calculus

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-05, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: They also relieve a burden from the run-time, since all variables are declared, the runtime doesn't has to check whether or not a variable is accesible, it knows it is. >>> Not in a dyn

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:10:58 GMT, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-10-04, Ron Adam schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>>Antoon Pardon wrote: >>> Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >And lo, one multi-billion dollar Mars lander

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-05, Brian Quinlan schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in >>>Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding >>>them would have on the

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-06, Bengt Richter schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 5 Oct 2005 09:27:04 GMT, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Antoon Pardon wrote: >> >>> It also is one possibility to implement writable closures. >>> >>> One could for instace have a 'declare' have the effect that >>> if on a

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On 5 Oct 2005 09:27:04 GMT, Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> It also is one possibility to implement writable closures. >> >> One could for instace have a 'declare' have the effect that >> if on a more inner scope such a declared variable is (re)bound it >> will

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK. The Python compiler would check that the name is declared but it > would not check that it is defined before use? So this would be > acceptable: > > def foo(): > local x > return x Come on, you are asking silly questions. Any reasonable C

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> This is naive. Testing doesn't guarantee anything. If this is what you > think about testing, then testing gives you a false impression of > security. Maybe we should drop testing. Typechecking is done by a reduced lamda calculus (System F, which is ML-Style), whereas testing has the full power

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> They also relieve a burden from the run-time, since all variables >>> are declared, the runtime doesn't has to check whether or not >>> a variable is accesible, it knows it is. >> Not in a dynamic language. Python lets you delete variables at run >> tim

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > So where are the complex templates and dangerous void pointers in ML? You're right about that of course. There aren't any templates or pointers in COBOL either as far as I know, and COBOL has been used for lots of real world code (which ML hasn't). I don't know what your point

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > You'd have to declare any variable global, or declare it local, or it > could be a function name (defined with def) or a function arg (in the > function scope), or maybe you could also declare things like loop > indices. If it wasn't one of the above, the compiler would flag it

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Aren't you looking for some of compile-time checking that ensures that > only declared variables are actually used? If so, how does global help? You'd have to declare any variable global, or declare it local, or it could be a function name (defined with

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Mike Meyer wrote: (snip) > Antoon, at a guess I'd say that Python is the first time you've > encountered a dynamnic language. Being "horrified" at not having > variable declarations, Mike, "being horrified" by the (perceived as...) lack of variable declaration was the OP's reaction, not Antoon's.

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: >>Which is evaluated at runtime, does not require that the actual global >>variable be pre-existing, and does not create the global variable if >>not actually assigned. I think that is pretty different than your >>proposal semantics. > > > Different how? Aren't you looking for

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > As far as I understand people don't like global very much so I don't > expect that a second keyword with the same kind of behaviour has > any chance. That's why the behaviour I suggest is different than the current behaviour of global. Arguments against global (it is the on

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-10-04, Ron Adam schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>Antoon Pardon wrote: >> >>>Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> And lo, one multi-billion dollar Mars lander starts braking either too early or too late. Result: a new crater on Mars,

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-05, Duncan Booth schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> It also is one possibility to implement writable closures. >> >> One could for instace have a 'declare' have the effect that >> if on a more inner scope such a declared variable is (re)bound it >> will rebind the

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > >>Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>>Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in >>>Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding >>>them would have on the rest of the language? I can't ima

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in >>Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding >>them would have on the rest of the language? I can't imagine how any >>language with req

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Python already has a "global" declaration; > > Which is evaluated at runtime, does not require that the actual global > variable be pre-existing, and does not create the global variable if > not actually assigned. I think that is pretty different than

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > It also is one possibility to implement writable closures. > > One could for instace have a 'declare' have the effect that > if on a more inner scope such a declared variable is (re)bound it > will rebind the declared variable instead of binding a local name. That is one p

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

James A. Donald wrote: > What can one do to swiftly detect this type of bug? Unit tests. In my experience the edit - test cycle in Python is typically roughly as fast as the edit - compile cycle in e.g. C++, and much faster than the full edit - compile - link - test cycle in C++. You do use autom

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-05, Duncan Booth schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Rubin wrote: > >> Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in >>> Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding >>> them would have on the

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Magnus Lycka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems you've missed the entire point of using a dynamically > typed language. It's not just about saving typing time and making > your methods take up fewer lines of code. It's about writing generic > code. Just look at C++ with all that mess with compl

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Duncan Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you think variable declarations should be required, I don't think they should be required. I think there should optional declarations along with a compiler flag that checks for them if the user asks for it, like Perl has. > then you presumably want t

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Some people just don't get the simple fact that declarations are > essentially kind of unit test you get for free (almost), and the compiler > is a testing framework for them. It seems you've missed the entire point of using a dynamically typed language. It's not just ab

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-04, Ron Adam schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>And lo, one multi-billion dollar Mars lander starts braking either too >>>early or too late. Result: a new crater on Mars, named after the NASA >>>employ

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in >> Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding >> them would have on the rest of the language? I can't imagine how any >> language with r

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-04, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:58:33 +, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> Declarations also allow easier writable closures. Since the declaration >

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

C++ and C# are converging with implicitly typed languages to the extent that many declarations will be able to omit types. In the next C++ standard and in C# 3.0 it may be possible to write, where Fn is a function returning any particular type: auto spam = Fn(); // C++0x var spam = Fn

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

marduk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > def myfunc(MyClass myparam): >int spam = 6 >str eggs > ># etc > > i.e. typed declarations and type checking. This would annoy the heck > out of me. It could be like Lisp, which has optional type declarations. If you use the type declarations, t

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 11:43 -0700, Paul Rubinhttp: wrote: > What's the big deal? Perl has an option for flagging undeclared > variables with warnings ("perl -w") or errors ("use strict") and Perl > docs I've seen advise using at least "perl -w" routinely. Those > didn't have much impact. Python

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Brian Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in > Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding > them would have on the rest of the language? I can't imagine how any > language with required declarations coul

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 06:59:04 +, Antoon Pardon wrote: >> >> >>>Well I'm a bit getting sick of those references to standard idioms. >>>There are moments those standard idioms don't work, while the >>>gist of t

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:18:24 -0700, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > >In the functional language approach I'm familiar with, you > >introduce a variable into a scope with a bind - > > > > let a = expr in >

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:18:24 -0700, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >In the functional language approach I'm familiar with, you >introduce a variable into a scope with a bind - > > let a = expr in > ... do something with a > >and initialization is part of the package. Type is us

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>>Or you just code without declaring, intending to go > >>>back and do it later, and invariably forget. > >> > >>What's the problem, the compilor will

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> My gut reaction is that it's a wash. The time taken to declare >> variables in well-written code in a well-designed language - meaning >> the declarations and use will be close together - isn't all that >> great, but neither are the savings. > You've g

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Op 2005-10-03, Steven D'Aprano schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:58:33 +, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Declarations also allow easier writable closures. Since the declaration > happens at a certain scope, the run time can easily find th

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Have those of you who think that the lack of required declarations in Python is a huge weakness given any thought to the impact that adding them would have on the rest of the language? I can't imagine how any language with required declarations could even remotely resemble Python. And if you wa

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

> What can one do to swiftly detect this type of bug? While I can only speak from my own experience I can't remember a single instance where this type of bug caused any kind of serious problem. IMHO these are very trivial errors, that get caught immediately and I would not even qualify them as

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Op 2005-10-04, Steve Holden schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Or you just code without declaring, intending to go back and do it later, and invariably forget. >>> >>>What's the problem, the compilor will allert you >>>to your

Re: "no variable or argument declarations are necessary."

Paul Rubin wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>Or you just code without declaring, intending to go >>>back and do it later, and invariably forget. >> >>What's the problem, the compilor will allert you >>to your forgetfullness and you can then correct >>them all at once. > >

  1   2   >