Attack a sacred Python Cow
Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jul 30 06:36:45 CEST 2008
On Jul 29, 2:27 am, Iain King <iaink... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:33 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 8:44 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 4:46 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As I said, I could write a pre-processor myself to
> > > > implement it in less than a day.
> > > So WHY DON'T YOU WRITE IT ALREADY?
> > I'm working on something else right now if you don't mind, but I'll
> > get to it in good time.
> > Conceptually, the matter is simple. All I need to do is to grab the
> > first formal argument of each def, then search for occurrences of any
> > word in the body of the def that starts with a dot, and insert that
> > first argument in front of it.
> > I expect the "hard" part will be breaking up the body of the def into
> > "words." I could just split each line on white space, except for
> > situations like
> > x+=.zzz
> > So I need to account for the fact that operators do not need to be
> > surrounded by spaces. That's the hardest part I can think of off the
> > top of my head.
> > Maybe I'll encounter an insurmountable problem and realize that the
> > idea can't work in general. If so, then so be it. Certainly, no one on
> > this thread has anticipated such a problem. Had someone pointed out an
> > actual technical problem with the idea, I would have gladly thanked
> > them. But I got a load of irrelevant crap instead, not to mention
> > being addressed as "boy."
> > > If you're meeting so much resistance to your idea, why not scratch
> > > your own damn itch and just do it?
> > > Or doesn't that afford you as many chances to insult others while
> > > feeling smugly superior?
> > This coming from a guy who insulted my reading comprehension ability
> > -- when he was the one who was wrong!
> Are you actually this stupid? I mean, you were entertaining while you
> were mouthing of and insulting your betters, but now you're gonna
> complain the second anyone insults you (and I mean, 'boy' - what an
> insult!). Never mind that you're never gonna get off your ass to
> write a PEP, which would be rejected on language design grounds anyway
> (as demonstrated by alex23's link - the one you aren't
> comprehending). The most irritating thing is that I like the idea of
> being able to use '.x = 10' type notation (and have been for a long
> time), but the person arguing for it is an insufferable buffoon who's
> too dense to understand a cogent argument, never mind make one. So
> great, thanks, the chances of this (or a VB 'with'-like 'using'
> keyword) ever making it into the language get smaller every time you
> fire up your keyboard. Nice work.
> p.s. am looking forward to your post whining about the invalid reasons
> your PEP got rejected, in the slim hope you actually write one.
Thanks for the gentle prod! I'm on it -- well, soon anyway. I have to
consciously avoid thinking about this post whenever I consume a
More information about the Python-list