If you want X, you know where to find it (was Re: do...until wisdom needed...)

[Douglas Alan]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> > I know perfectly well how to write
> > robust macros, having written many of them in days gone by.  And you
> > know what?  They worked and were bug-free.

> You have written robust macros in Python?  Peculiar.  The time
> machine must be malfunctioning...

I did not say I wrote them in Python.  I have written them in Lisp,
and in Lisp, just like you would need to in Python, you must make sure
that an exception handler does not catch the wrong exceptions.  I
don't believe that the exception system I was using at the time had an
"else" clause, so this needed to be done with the use of temporary
variables.

> you _sure_ you didn't use instead a language whose first and
> foremost design choice was to use a form for its programs that is
> easy to process by program, rather than one that's easy for humans
> to read and write?

You seem to think that this is an insurmountable barier.  I feel that
it is not.  Lisp 1.5 had an algol-like syntax in addition to it's
s-expression syntax.  If you wanted to write code that manipulated
other code you had to be familiar with the s-expression syntax.  If
you didn't want to do this, then you could stick completely to the
algol-like syntax.  Why didn't the algol-like syntax stick?  The Lisp
community ended up being perfectly happy with the s-expression syntax
and decided they didn't need two.  This was probably a mistake, since
if they had kept the algol-like syntax, Lisp might not have
disappeared into the ghettos it now dominates.

> try/except/else is of course no rocket science compared to the High
> Surgery you will be proposing in your PEP, no doubt.  But care about
> little things (such as spelling, or correct usage of a programming
> language even in illustrative examples) may be a good indicator of a
> person's mindset and attitude.

My usage of the programming language was perfectly correct.  My
spelling is often problematic.  As I already told you, I am dyslexic.
I did look up McCarthy's name and I used the spelling I found.
Apparently there are others who are as dyslexic as I am.  Caveat
Emptor.

> If I had my choice each and every time, I would take the latter,

I have not taunted you into a flame war.  You have done it of your own
accord.

> What you are advocating here in the last few days is not "Python",
> but, rather, declaration of variables, infinitely extensible syntax

You are saying that because I have a difference of opinion from you
that you are justified in being abusive?

> (and, I gather from the grapevine, only single-inheritance rather
> than multiple, and no spaces for indentation -- not sure how many
> other brilliant ideas you've still spared us for the moment).

You gather wrong.  Time for a new grapevine.

> If this is the "python" you're relentlessly evangelizing, then my
> interest in your evangelization activities is a _negative_ one.

I evangelize Python as it is.  When people point out flaws in Python,
I agree with them that Python has some flaws, but I point out that it
is still by far the best tool out there for many tasks.  I don't call
the "whiners" idiots because they have a difference of opinion from me
or from Guido.

> Our passion level on such themes is then probably on a par.  A key
> difference would seem to be that I would never try to *pervert* a
> programming language by totally ignoring its fundamentals,

Then you must think that Guido has at times wanted to "pervert" Python
and ignore its fundamentals.

> while you appear to be one of the kind of people who love to _grasp_
> beautiful things for the specific purpose of sullying their purity.

You know very little about me.

> Do you hang around Haskell lists whining that Haskell would be
> just great if it just switched over to eager evaluation, mutability,
> and no type-correctness?

No, because Haskell is a research language.  It serves its purpose of
furthering research well.  I would suggest to the Haskell folk,
however, that it needs to become more object-oriented as the problem
domain becomes more undertood.

> or is Python the only language lucky enough to get the unmeasurable
> benefits of your boundless wisdom...?

Any language whose purpose is to be a general purpose programming
language can learn from other languages.  No general purpose
programming language yet created cannot be improved.

> > Why don't you tell your theory that anyone who thinks an extensible
> > syntax might be a useful feature doesn't understand the
> > "wellenbrofferpoftenbuft" of Python to Guido, since I saw him muse in

> Uh, do I notice a strong hostility towards the German language in
> this pseudo-quote?

No.

> You know, the "print>>flop" fiasco _did_ make me suspect that at one
> point:-).  But then I rationalized that one disaster per ten years
> is still a very good batting average -- far better than any I can
> claim.  As for musings, they're innocuous enough until and unless
> they become substance.

Well all *I've* provided is musings too.  Why don't you start treating
Guido the way you've treated me?  I've mused about nothing here that
he hasn't also mused about.

> > Your hypothetical army of monkeys sitting
> > at typewriters would better serve the community.

> *MINE*?  _BLUSH_.  You know, Mr Alan, I _have_ received many
> interesting compliments on the net, but, so far, none as high as
> somebody mistaking me for Emile Borel

You need to brush up on your idiomatic English.  I know quite well
that the story of the monkeys with typewriters did not originate with
you.  Thanks for the history lesson though.

|>oug