Some "pythonic" suggestions for Python

[Frank Samuelson]

So you like my ideas too!

> 
> There are at least 2 posts a month by someone who decides that they
> want to re-wire Python syntax. Usually it's because of some particular
> idiom they're used to in another language, 

And python does not use idioms from other languages?

> in other cases it's because
> they've got some particular issue with "consistency". 

My impression was that "consistency" was important to Python.
"Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to
keep referring to the manual.  Things work the way I expect them
to work.

> 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.

> The poster is almost always a Python
> beginner (I don't know if thats true in your case or not).

Only a couple years at it, but that is true of all of the languages
that  I know, I guess...

> 
> Arbitrary changes to syntax are never going to fly. It's a lost cause.

The changes are not arbitrary.  They are logical, consistent, less
arbitrary and thus more productive.  If such
changes are a lost cause, that is too bad, because
it implies that Python will stagnate.  Unfortunately that appears the case.
Though backward compatibility is not an issue (3.0 breaks stuff), I have
learned that there are many pythonistas who make up lots of arbitrary
reasons not to change anything, even if it is for the better.

> If you can't handle Python without your pet changes, fork it and write
> your own version and let the marketplace of ideas decide if its
> useful.

Apparently you missed my statement about loving Python.  I love it
because it is the second most productive language I have ever used,
though I do believe it has the potential to be the greatest ever by
far.