Some "pythonic" suggestions for Python
steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Sat Nov 10 00:08:52 CET 2007
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:41:24 -0500, Frank Samuelson wrote:
>> The ideas are
>> *never* fully thought out or materialized, and they invariably invite
>> scorn from the user community.
> Of course, they're thought out: They're stolen from another language.
> Specifically, the language in which I am most productive.
No, they aren't fully thought out *at all*. To wit:
* you've suggested crippling tracebacks, throwing away the most important
piece of information they currently provide, just because you don't like
the def statement;
* you've suggested allowing sequences as indices into lists, completely
unaware that your two suggestions for what it should mean are mutually
* you've suggested getting rid of the slice syntax for no advantage;
* you've suggested making the function constructor itself a function, and
seem to be completely unaware that your request would need a very
different syntax to that Python already uses;
* you suggest two different versions for the function constructor, one
that is an expression and one that is a suite, but judging by your
comments you don't even realize they are two different versions.
Need I go on?
If you want your suggestions to be taken seriously, you need to think
them through carefully. Well-designed programming languages are not like
chop suey, where you grab whatever left-overs you have in the fridge and
mix them all together because you like the individual ingredients.
More information about the Python-list