[Python-Dev] Re: closure semantics
aleaxit at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 26 09:16:31 EST 2003
On Sunday 26 October 2003 11:51, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> Just because I don't use a particular feature of the language doesn't
> mean I have no interest in how the language evolves. I don't believe I
Absolutely true. Any feature added to the language brings some weight
to all, even those who will not use it (perhaps not much to those who will
not use it AND only care about their own code, but I do believe that most
should also care about _others'_ code, even if they don't realize that --
reusing others' code from the net, &c, are still possibilities).
> ever disrespected your ideas or opinions. Why are you disrespecting
> mine? Hell, why are you disrespecting me?
I had no intention of expressing any disrespect to you. If I
miscommunicated in this regard, I owe you an apology. As for opinions
based on only caring about one's own code, I am, however, fully entitled
to meta-opine that such opinions are too narrowly based, and that
not considering the coding behavior of others is near-sighted.
> I would be more than happy if nested scopes weren't in the language.
> Their absence would also make your teaching, advising, mentoring,
> maintenance and enhancing simpler. I haven't proposed that they be
> removed, though that would be rather clean way to solve this problem.
Of course such a proposal would have to wait for 3.0 (i.e. who knows when)
given backwards incompatibility. Personally, I think that would just bring
back all the "foo=foo, bar=bar" default-argument abuse that we used to
have before nested scopes appeared, and therefore would not make any
of my activities substantially simpler nor more productive (even discounting
the large work of porting code across such a jump in semantics -- I think
that could be eased by tools systematically _introducing_ default-argument
abuse, but the semantics of such 'snapshotting' is still far enough from
today's nested arguments to require plenty of manual inspection and
> Alex, if a qualification for discussing improvements to Python is that
> one use every aspect of the language, please pronounce. I'll be happy to
> butt out of your turf.
You got the wrong guy: I don't get to pronounce, and this ain't my turf. I
only get to plead, cajole, whine, argue, entreaty, advocate, propose,
appeal, supplicate, contend, suggest, insist, agree, and disagree, just
like everybody else.
More information about the Python-Dev