UserLinux chooses Python as "interpretive language" of choice

John Roth newsgroups at
Sat Dec 20 22:26:13 CET 2003

"Steve Lamb" <grey at> wrote in message
news:slrnbu9f7q.qbj.grey at
> On 2003-12-20, John Roth <newsgroups at> wrote:
> > It doesn't matter. As you can see by my reply to Bengt,
> > the crux of the issue is that, in Ruby, the function call
> > syntax is *optional.* There is no way to make it optional
> > in Python, and it is not clear whether it should be.
>     It is quite clear.  I, and others, have shown why several times.

It's clear that it should be? No, that's clearly not what
you meant.

Remainder of rant snipped.

John Roth
> -- 
>          Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm
>        PGP Key: 8B6E99C5       | main connection to the switchboard of

As I said before, you are not and will never be.

More information about the Python-list mailing list