from future import pass_function

Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Thu Jul 26 11:26:49 CEST 2012


On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:59:30 +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:

> Am 26.07.2012 04:38, schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
>> The examples of pass-as-a-function shown by the Original Poster don't
>> give any clue of what advantage there is to make pass a function.
> 
> Just read the text, it just struck me how similar pass and print are,
> i.e. that neither actually needs to be a keyword. In some cases, I would
> rather use "return" to replace "pass" though.

I did read your text. I was not enlightened.


>> It appears that the only reason for this suggested change is that he
>> would rather write "pass()" instead of "pass", possibly because he
>> thinks it looks cool.
> 
> I have no idea where you got the "cool" from, it is not in my posting.

I didn't say that was what you said. I made it clear that "cool" was *my* 
words.


>> (Actually, I reckon that what is driving this idea is that the OP is a
>> beginner, and he's got a syntax error a few times from writing
>> "pass()", and so he thought it would be easier to force other people to
>> change tens or hundreds of thousands of Python programs to use "pass()"
>> instead of "pass" than to just learn to stop putting parentheses after
>> it.
> 
> So, and in order to force people to write parens or break their code I
> have considered the possibility of importing that feature from
> __future__ for those people that want it? Seriously, Steven, as much as
> I like your regular contributions here, this time you had better logged
> off and taken a walk, because you come across as _very_ arrogant here.

*shrug* I'm just being honest. As you admitted, you hadn't really given 
the idea a lot of thought. Your examples didn't show any difference 
except a pair of parentheses () after the pass. I made two guesses on 
what motivated your suggestion, based on the information I had in front 
of me at the time.

By the way, you trimmed out my comment where I admit to also having come 
up with changes to Python without giving any thought to the consequences. 
My guesses as to your motive for wanting to change "pass" were not based 
on your thoughts, which are hidden to me, but on the way I used to think. 
It took me a long time to learn that, for an established language like 
Python, change is nearly always for the worse, and any change that 
requires changing existing code better have a very good excuse.


-- 
Steven



More information about the Python-list mailing list