A 'Python like' language

dreamingforward at gmail.com dreamingforward at gmail.com
Sat Mar 3 07:12:04 CET 2012

On Tuesday, March 30, 2004 12:31:35 AM UTC-7, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > --Take advantage of iterators early on for return values to avoid
> > things like having both dict.items() and dict.iteritems().
> Interestiong idea.  Generators are fully supported so I could do this now.
> So gens would have to be allowed absolutely everywhere lists are allowed (is
> trhis possible?).  Or are you thinking the user should type
> List(dict.items()) ?

No, the former.  Most of the time you never really use a full, naked list anyway, generally only for documentation purposes.

> > --Choose "{:}" syntax for empty dict creation to reserve "{}" for
> > sets.  (Or: use "{}" for both, and do automatic "set-to-dict
> Also cool.  Maybe <> for sets?  Prothon doesn't support <> as != so it is
> free.

I strongly suggest the standard (in math anyway) syntax for set notation.  It shouldn't be hard to parse whether code syntax is referring to a set vs. dict.

> > --Functions that return multiple, but unique, values should return a
> > set, not a list, to communicate same (ex: dict.keys(), dir(), etc.).
> Also cool.

This is something that still hasn't really been implemented in PythonV3. 
> > --Dict should inherit from Set.
> Also cool (I feel like the credits of Holy Grail saying Also wik).

An alternative is to create a named association type, similar to the ABC programming language, denoted by the colon.  "name": [].  A dict then would simply be a set of these.  Having a compound type would come in handy in several other ways too.

> > --With prothon's "immutability" bit and other considerations, does the
> > language need both tuples AND lists?
> I like this a lot.  Tuples are already implemented internally as lists.

I think, in fact, that the object model could be more unified.  Under such a new object model, the worries about having a full library becomes rather pointless, as the new model will require a revamping of everything.

> More like a few dollars.  This is really good stuff.  Can I talk you into
> hanging out on the Prothon list now and then, at least until we get the core
> language sorted out?

Haha, a little late, but consider this a restart.

More information about the Python-list mailing list