why no ++?

[Mark Robinson]

Grant Griffin wrote:

> In article <3B6AA8A1.4000907 at herts.ac.uk>, Mark says...
> ....
> 
>> I especially agree, makes me think a bit about how I use things too. Who 
>> knows before you know it I might actually write something I wasn't 
>> ashamed to show ;). Thats why I intend to carry on picking everyones 
>> brain on here.
> 
> 
> Don't hesitate.  But rember: you can pick your friends, and you can pick your
> friends' brains, but you can't pick your friends' nose.
> 
Well, never one to simply take someones word I have performed a small 
scale experiment to test your previous statement. I conclude that it 
needs a small modification. It isn't strictly true that you can't pick 
your friends nose, but it is surely true that you shouldn't. Unless of 
course you mean that after you have picked their nose they are probably 
no longer your friend, but I would argue that they were your friend at 
the time of picking ;).

There let noone say I contribute nothing to this newgroup (although feel 
free to say I contribute nothing of worth ;))

> I'm not sure if anyone has explained the philosophical basis of "why no ++". 
> It's rooted in Tim Peters' maxim:
> 
>    There should be on--and preferably only one--obvious way to do things.
> 

I guess this is one of the main ways in with the python philosophy 
diverges from that of the perl philosophy where obfusticated code is 
fascilitated to a far greater degree ;).


blobby