data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d8b1b/d8b1b7e7ad8529160fdb75ce09b5dc93bcf557b1" alt=""
On 22 June 2013 20:51, Anders Hovmöller <boxed@killingar.net> wrote:
Hmm, I wasn't aware that doing
class Foo: bar = bar
was even valid python, blech. But that's a pretty contrived example. I'm not suggesting something huge and radical like totally redefining how assignment works :P I'm just suggesting a small change that I believe would have repercussions far above the weight class of the change itself. "It's the little things" and all that.
Yes, but consistency, y'know. Why "bar = bar ≡ = bar" here and "bar = bar !≡ = bar" there?
I'm not convinced either. I like the idea, but it's not that big a deal and I don't like your proposed implementation.
Well I think it is a big deal. I think Objective-C code bases are much easier to maintain because they have a superior syntax for calling methods. I don't like it when other languages do something as simple as calling functions better than my otherwise favorite language :P
I've skimmed a bit but I'm still unsure; why? How does Objective-C deal with this?
There are so many more cases to cover and this doesn't fill them,
Like what? At least name one so we can have a discussion about it!
One? Well, the one above! I agree that classes seem a bit far-fetched (personally I dislike that syntax) but what about: def function(arg=arg): ... def function(arg): self.arg = arg thing = dictionary[thing] and so on, which are all of the same form, albeit with different "surroundings". We can't just double the whole syntax of Python for this!
nor it's original one nicely.
Ok. Why? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know what the reasons are so I can understand why I was mistaken so I can forget about this idea :P
Does foo(=bar) not bug you? Really?