On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:23 AM Mark Shannon email@example.com wrote:
In general, I would except macros to be used within libraries, so that those libraries gain the power of their custom macros without making Python ever larger and more complex.
However, there is no reason why they cannot be made more widely available. Should a macro become widely used and popular, then it can be considered for adoption into the language.
I'd find both of those to be scary options, since there can be many many different versions of the macros in the wild, making Python into a nightmarish hodge-podge of different dialects. But with support like this, Python could be more easily prototyped; a proposed new syntactic feature could be played with by coding it up as a macro, before it's actually part of the language. Users would be encouraged to try it but NOT to publish code using it. If some feature then became a part of (say) Python 3.14, then the macro system could be used to backport it as far as possible.
So I'm +0.75 on this, but not with the justification you've given :)