python3: 'where' keyword

Carl Banks invalidemail at aerojockey.com
Mon Jan 10 16:02:38 CET 2005


Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Carl Banks" <invalidemail at aerojockey.com> writes:
> > When I asked you to do this, it was just a rhetorical way to tell
you
> > that I didn't intend to play this game.  It's plain as day you're
> > trying to get me to admit something.  I'm not falling for it.
> >
> > If you have a point to make, why don't you just make it?
>
> You asked me to compare the notion of macros with the Zen list.  I
did
> so.  I didn't see any serious conflict, and reported that finding.
> Now you've changed your mind and you say you didn't really want me to
> make that comparison after all.

I asked you to make an educated guess about what I would think of them,
which you didn't do.  I wanted you to apply the Zen to macros so that
you could justify the guess.  I wasn't interested in your thoughts.


> An amazing amount of the headaches that both newbies and experienced
> users have with Python, could be solved by macros.  That's why
there's
> been an active interest in macros for quite a while.  It's not clear
> what the best way to do design them is, but their existence can have
a
> profound effect on how best to do these ad-hoc syntax extensions like
> "where".  Arbitrary limitations that are fairly harmless without
> macros become a more serious pain in the neck if we have macros.

What good are macros going to do when they entail (according to you)
saddling the language with all this unreadable crap?  You may say
macros are not against the Zen of Python, but for their sake, you will
add a million things that are.  Net effect is, you've taken away
everything that makes Python great.

But here's the best part: all of this is to avoid a "serious pain in
the neck."

Get real, Paul.

Here's a thought: if macros are so great, it should be pretty easy for
you to create a halfway syntax with none of these pesky so-called
"arbitrary limitations" and have macros automatically turn it into
legal Python.  Don't you think that's maybe better than turning the
language into an unreadable blob?

No, of course you don't, because an unreadable blob is the LISP way.


> So, we shouldn't consider these topics separately from each other.
> They are likely to end up being deeply related.

No, Paul, they're likely never to be related because Python is never
going to have macros.  Or, at least not the general sort that you want.
-- 
CARL BANKS




More information about the Python-list mailing list