Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?

Michele Simionato michele.simionato at gmail.com
Sat Jun 23 16:45:42 CEST 2007


On Jun 23, 6:11 am, Lenard Lindstrom <l... at telus.net> wrote:
> When this thread turned to the topic of macros I did an Internet search
> for information on macros relevant to Python. Dylan's macros look
> promising. The Python-inspired language Converge has macros (http://convergepl.org/). Michael Hudson's Bytecodehacks package
> supports limited Python macros (http://bytecodehacks.sourceforge.net/bch-docs/bch/module-bytecodehack...
> ). There is also the __macro__ package, which I still have on my
> computer, but I cannot find its home page.
>
> The __macro__ package simply allows text substitution of source code at
> module import time. The bytecodehack.macro module lets one define what
> amounts to inlined functions. IMO neither package represents a
> productive macro system. And I could find no other attempts to take
> Python macros beyond wishful thinking. So until some solid proposal for
> Python macros is put on the table any discussion of their merits is
> unproductive. I can suggest though that procedural macros are a natural
> starting point given the runtime nature of class and function creation.
>
> --
> Lenard Lindstrom
> <l... at telus.net>

I would add to your list http://livelogix.net/logix/
and
http://www.fiber-space.de/EasyExtend/doc/main/EasyExtend.html

  Michele Simionato




More information about the Python-list mailing list