steve at holdenweb.com
Mon Dec 27 13:57:34 CET 2004
> In article <mailman.8453.1104070799.5135.python-list at python.org>,
> Fredrik Lundh <fredrik at pythonware.com> wrote:
>>func(*arg) instead of apply() is a step back -- it hides the fact
>>that functions are objects, and it confuses the heck out of both
>>C/C++ programmers and Python programmers that understand the "def
>>func(*arg)" form, because it looks like something it isn't (there's a
>>false symmetry between the call-form and the def-form).
> For me, it works the other way around, but I can see how you perceive it
> that way.
>>and I still do enough 1.5.2-programming to use "x = x + y"; when I find
>>myself in a situation where my code would benefit a lot from being able
>>to write "x += y" instead, I go back and fix the design.
> Okay, it wasn't clear in your original post that you're still stuck with
> 1.5.2. That makes a huge difference in the convenience of newer
I haven't corresponded specifically with Fredrik about this, bit I get
the impression he *chooses* to continue to produce 1.5.2-compatible
products. I for one, having suffered at the hands of modules that
*claim* 1.5.2 compatibility (and then screw you by using dict()!),
appreciate the time he takes to do so.
A summary of how to maintain such compatibility might make Python apps
more accessible - how many of us can say that our code would run on a
Red Hat 7 system any more? The sad thing is that it's often fairly
trivial changes that remove backwards-compatibility.
>>string methods are nice, but nothing groundbreaking, and their niceness
>>is almost entirely offset by the horrid "".join(seq) construct that
>>keeps popping up when people take the "the string module is deprecated"
>>yada yada too seriously. and what do the python-devers do? they add a
>>"sum" built-in, but no "join"? hello?
Well, I guess we have to accept that not every change to the language is
going to be well-thought-out and completely desirable.
> While I'm in complete agreement about the "".join() construct on the
> basis of looks, I have come to appreciate the fact that I *never* mess up
> the order of arguments any more.
Personally that's one of the changes I managed to take in my stride, and
I've never really felt it was a biggie. Maybe my code is just so ugly
that a little extra ugliness isn't noticeable?
horses-for-courses-ly y'rs - steve
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119
More information about the Python-list