Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?

Rhodri James rhodri at wildebst.demon.co.uk
Thu Jan 15 06:56:12 CET 2009


On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:54:02 -0000, Paul Rubin  
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> "Rhodri James" <rhodri at wildebst.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> > Again, there have to be some language extensions to communicate the
>> > necessary info to the external tool.
>>
>> Or, dare one say it, conventions?
>
> If the language-tool combo uses the info in a formal way, they are
> extensions, not conventions.

If the tool isn't part of the compile/run cycle, I'm not convinced that
that's a useful view to take.  It is useful to regard to C preprocessor
statements as extensions to C, though it's had the result that nobody
uses that quite general purpose preprocessor for anything other than C.
It's less obvious that the conventional folding marks "{{{ ... }}}"
some editors (can be made to) recognise are usefully considered as
extensions to any language.

But this is just quibbling over semantics.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses



More information about the Python-list mailing list