On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Cliff Wells email@example.com wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 14:03 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
Maintaining consistency is far more important than limiting size, and is why most proposals are rejected. I don't feel that any of the recent changes have introduced inconsistencies in the language.
Ah, but I do:
if cond: block
expr if cond
Here we have two forms of the *very same* logical construction. A programmer must select one or the other based on *context*. This is my definition of inconsistent (although it's roots lie in a deeper inconsistency, namely the distinction between expressions and statements).
By definition, anything more complex than a turing machine contains these redundancies (which you call inconsistencies). Clearly, we all use languages with a great number of them, so your notion that they're inherently bad is disproven.
Which isn't to say they're inherently good either.. they do have a cost, increasing the mental load of the programmer. That suggests there's a tradeoff involved. Asking about the tradeoffs would be a much more productive discussion.