nested scopes: I'm glad (+excuses)
Hi. I'm really glad that the holy war has come to an end, and that a technical solution has been found. This was my first debate here and I have said few wise things, more stupid ones and some violent or unfair: my excuses go to Jeremy, Guido and the biz mind (in some of us) that make money out of software (nobody can predict how he will make his living ;)) I'm glad that we have nested scopes, a transition syntax and path and no new keyword (no irony in the latter). Cheers, Samuele.
Hi.
I'm really glad that the holy war has come to an end, and that a technical solution has been found.
Not as glad as I am, Samuele!
This was my first debate here and I have said few wise things, more stupid ones and some violent or unfair: my excuses go to Jeremy, Guido and the biz mind (in some of us) that make money out of software (nobody can predict how he will make his living ;))
It wasn't my first debate (:-), but I feel the same way!
I'm glad that we have nested scopes, a transition syntax and path and no new keyword (no irony in the latter).
Me too.
Cheers, Samuele.
Hope to hear from you more, Samuele! How's the Jython port of nested scopes coming? --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:42:11PM +0100, Samuele Pedroni wrote:
I'm really glad that the holy war has come to an end, and that a technical solution has been found.
Same here. I really like the suggested solution, just to show that I'm not adverse to progress per se ;) I also apologize for not thinking up something similar, despite thinking long and hard (not to mention posting long and especially hard ;) on the issue. I'll have to buy you all beer (or cola, or hard liquor, whatever's your poison) next week ;-) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
participants (3)
-
Guido van Rossum -
Samuele Pedroni -
Thomas Wouters