Some "pythonic" suggestions for Python
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Nov 9 20:45:09 CET 2007
"Frank Samuelson" <newsdump0711.12.cudgel at neverbox.com> wrote in message
news:a9udnTe4ltcoEKnanZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d at cavtel.net...
| My impression was that "consistency" was important to Python.
Important, but not over-riding of all else.
| "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to
| keep referring to the manual. Things work the way I expect them
| to work.
Different people have different expectations. I noticed soon after
learning Python that def, class, and import statements are alternate and
special forms of name-binding statements. Some forms of import can be done
(more awkwardly) as = assignment with the __import__ function. Indeed, if
the name of the file to import is not known until runtime (as a string),
then the import must be so done. But I never expected function definition
to done that way. Perhaps this is because it is special cased in the
previous languages I have used, from Fortran to C.
To me, complete consistency would demand a syntax like
name = func('name', ('param1', ....), '''
While anonymous data objects are fine, anonymous code is not.
| Though backward compatibility is not an issue (3.0 breaks stuff),
While there will be minor breakage, backward compatibility was most
definitely an issue in the design of Python 3 (not pretty well done as far
as syntax goes).
PS. If you did not want the hostility you perceive, then I think your
title was a mistake. Calling your proposals 'pythonic' invites
disagreement and distracts from discussion of their merits.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-list