Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[prunesquallor at comcast.net]

Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz at web.de> writes:

> There's also a narrow and a broad sense here: obviously, it's not
> possible to type check all Lisp idioms, but are we allowed to present
> alternative idioms that do type check and serve the same purpose?

I don't have a problem with this, but I don't want to split hairs on
what constitutes an `idiom' vs. what constitutes a complete rewrite.

Presumably, an alternative idiom would involve only *local* changes,
not global ones, and could be performed incrementally, i.e., each
use of an idiom could be independently replaced and thus reduce the
the the type checking errors.

If a change involves pervasive edits, say, for instance, editing all
callers of some function to pass an extra argument, or wrapping a
conditional branch around all uses of an object, that would not be
an alternative idiom.