Ideas for Python 3

[David MacQuigg]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 20:41:24 -0700, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu>
wrote:
<snip>
>I've read the link you posted, and I've previously taken a look at 
>Prothon.  Prototype syntax does not suit my taste in programming 
>languages.  If Python 3.0 becomes Prothon, I'll fork the most recent 
>Python 2.x codebase that I prefer, maintaining it myself if necessary.
>
>Just as my anti-prototype perspective colors my opinions on what is 
>reasonable, I would imagine that your pro-prototype perspective colors 
>yours.

I am currently neutral on the idea of prototypes, still waiting for
anyone to show me a good use case, so I can include it in my webpage.
I still have "cloning" of instances in my proposal, but you will
notice they are at the bottom of the list of benefits at
http://ece.arizona.edu/~edatools/Python/PrototypeSyntax.htm

I typically get enthusiastic about something when I first see it, then
I learn a little more, and some of the new tricks/features drop to the
bottom of my list.  What remains of my original enthusiasm for Prothon
is still in the unification of methods and functions.

The main thing that changed my mind on the need for Prothon-like
prototypes is Michele Simionato's posting on 4/28/04 "Prototypes in
Python".  If anyone is seriously interested in prototyping, they can
do it in Python right now, using Michele's 'prototype.py' module.
Until we get some actual users with a demonstrated need, I'm not
pushing for anything beyond the current module.

The key to finding what is fundamentally good in these other
languages, and what is just someone's personal preference for being
different, is keeping an open mind.  It's astonishing how few people
can do that in comparing computer languages.  I guess it is just
easier to be "anti" or "pro" and skip the investigation and thinking.

>I would also expect that someone who enjoys using lisp or 
>perhaps SML would have their opinion on what is reasonable, colored by 
>their preferences.  Considering that Python is not a prototype-based 
>language today in 2.3 (or the forthcoming 2.4 in the fall), having it 
>become one in Python 3 would be quite a drastic change, quite literally 
>like going from Python 2.3 to Prothon.

I continue to find new surprises in Python.  The ability to change
classes into prototypes by using descriptors is the latest exammple.
This seems like a drastic change, but it is all within the capability
of Python.

Prothon does have some changes that are more drastic, but in my
opinion have no real benefit over Python.  I measure drastic by how
much effort it will take to translate existing Python programs to
Prothon.  By this measure, the unification of functions and methods is
not a drastic change.  I believe it will be possible to automatically
translate all Python methods into the new form.  So if we categorize
syntax changes as ( Compatible / Migratable / Totally Different ), the
proposed changes are in the middle.

-- Dave