--On Sunday, January 12, 2003 16:37:32 +0100 Christian Tismer <tismer@tismer.com> wrote:
holger krekel wrote:
[David Ascher Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 09:03:55PM -0800]
On the topic of macros et al:
I think that delivering minimal python will be quite hard. If the mandate is to create a new implementation of Python, then I think that the syntax of current Python should be seen as a "minimal" requirement from a syntactic POV. New syntactic elements can clearly be defined as well, although naturally care should be taken to ensure that existing code still works. (so making 'spam' a reserved word probably wouldn't work).
On the other hand, I'm going to lose interest in this project pretty fast if it turns into an _unsubstantiated_ argument about language design. If a new language construct is proposed as a fairly direct and well-supported way to get the implementation done better, faster, cheaper, then by all means.
To me http://www.python.org/dev/culture.html has become kind of a mantra. IMO especially 'readability counts' constrains Macro ideas alot.
Anyway, i am all for sticking to the language definition. Though I guess it will get easier to try out new syntax/semantic ideas.
I think that the decisions from the python developers have generally been very wise and publically extending the language should really be accepted by the usual authorities. Of course, there might be some special rules or constructs in the bootstrapping process if that really helps. But even then, i think that these will be restrictions rather than extensions. Let's not give up the common coding style and readability. What might seem a gain in the short term might not play out well in the end.
IOW I trust e.g. Guido more than my own judgement on these matters.
You are absolutely right!
We are not here for language design. That's already done by Guido, and he is right about it. We just want to try a different implementation. This is a high risk to be just a waste and something that the core group cannot afford to try, due to lack of time.
What we effectively are doing is a prototype of a new implementation based upon new techniques. This is explorative programming, pioneer work, an experiment. We will see if it succeeds. It will help Python either way.
ciao - chris
Fair enough. I simply thought that macros were an *old* technique that could be useful, even if only as part of the implementation, but the consensus is otherwise. I don't quite understand, but I'll shut up now :-) I guess the operative part of the culture document is #5, 'Flat is better than nested'. Please don't continue the thread, I'm convinced. Andrew