code blocks in Python
newsgroups at jhrothjr.com
Tue Nov 25 00:54:49 CET 2003
"Hung Jung Lu" <hungjunglu at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ef9bea6.0311241527.61a27b6c at posting.google.com...
> Skip Montanaro <skip at pobox.com> wrote in message
news:<mailman.1035.1069703636.702.python-list at python.org>...
> I come back again to repeat it one more time: the compile() function
> already exists and works in Python. Before you do your posting, please
> think about the compile() function first. (Do I need to say it one
> more time? I don't mind.)
Functionality is not added to Python simply because it looks like
a logical extension of something else that already exists. First,
you need to show a compelling use case.
So far, I've seen one thing in your proposal: dynamic binding
of free variables in a function, rather than static binding. All
questions of syntax aside, please show me why this matters,
bearing in mind that I've never programmed in a language
that has this, and am not going to be convinced by references
to such languages.
While I'm not *the* person that has to be convinced (that's Guido),
I'm probably representative. If you don't manage a compelling
case for why dynamic binding is a useful option, then you're not going
to get anywhere with this proposal.
By the way - if I understand the guts of the proposal, the compile
function has nothing to do with it, and wouldn't be used to implement
it in any case.
More information about the Python-list