Feedback wanted on programming introduction (Python in Windows)
steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au
Fri Oct 30 04:45:30 CET 2009
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:05:11 -0700, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * James Harris:
>>> You get way too deep into Python in places (for a beginner's course in
>>> programming). For example, "from now on I’ll always use from
>>> __future__ in any program that uses print."
>> Sorry, but I think that hiding such concerns is a real disservice.
> The disservice is in teaching folks to use non-standard elements, which
> is (sort-of) what __future__ is. Changes to the language are
> experimented with in __future__
That is incorrect. Changes to the syntax or language semantics are
*introduced* with __future__, so as to avoid a sudden and disruptive
backwards incompatible change. If a feature makes it into __future__, it
is anything but experimental.
There is nothing "non-standard" about features introduced with
__future__. The only thing that concerns me is that __future__ may be a
little too advanced for beginners.
> and can change from one release to the next.
Python guarantees that no feature will ever be removed from __future__.
It may become a no-op, but it will always be there. Note that 3.0 still
defines nested_scopes, even though that's been standard in the language
[steve at sylar ~]$ python3.0
Python 3.0.1 (r301:69556, Apr 2 2009, 00:41:38)
[GCC 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-27)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from __future__ import nested_scopes
>>> import __future__
_Feature((2, 1, 0, 'beta', 1), (2, 2, 0, 'alpha', 0), 16)
> If memory serves, the with statement is an example of having
> different behavior when it was moved out of __future__ and made a
> standard part of the language.
I feel safe to claim you are wrong without even checking.
More information about the Python-list