Any other Python flaws?

[Bengt Richter]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:26:10 -0400, "Steve Holden"
<sholden at holdenweb.com> wrote:
[...]
>Despite the fact that our Fearless Leader and BDFL has already revered
>himself once on this issue, I'd like to see strict syntactical equity
>between function definitions and class definitions, which is to say that a
>class with no superclasses should be declarable as:
>
>    class myClass():
>        pass

Why not the other way around? I.e., drop the mandatory "()"
for function defs with no args. A bare 'foo' could still
evaluate to <function foo at 007F308C> and foo() would do
what it does now.

You could consider '()'-less execution like Pascal, if you
could define a reasonable "__"-ism to condition the definition
of the function for that.

I sort of like the idea of a symbol being able to yield a string
transparently either by plain dereferencing or by having a
function produce it, without any difference in the expression.
Of course, you'd need some kind of quote function if you
wanted to bind another symbol to the function object iself.