[PSA MEMBERS] Re: [Types-sig] Suggestions for python 2

Edward Welbourne Edward Welbourne <eddy@chaos.org.uk>
Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:59:05 GMT


> I'm not a functional programmer, and Python is not a functional
> programming language; and as far as I'm concerned it never will be
> one.

and that's just fine with me.  The reason for my list of `things this
will empower' is: there are folk asking for stuff that would mangle
python so that they can have those things.  My belief is that we don't
need to mangle python to achieve what I have in mind - and it'll
incidentally give them those things, in so far as they insist on having
them, without the rest of us having to notice.  In particular, safe
tunnels (and keyword-only arguments) are just *too* nice to not ask for.
And far nicer than asking for built-in functional tools.

> (Practical comment: the syntax <generator> <name> [<bases>]: <suite>
> won't fly; you seem to want <generator> to be any expression, and an
> expression followed by a name is too fragile a construct to be
> comfortably parseable (even if it might be unambiguous).)

No problem: always ask for more than need, so can back-pedal later.  The
generator could happily be a simple name (even one which has previously
been the subject of an statement which says `I intend to use this as a
generator' if desired).  Likewise, bases-tuples could be as at present
(rather than arbitrary expression yielding tuple, as asked for).

> Maybe you'll make the case better in person
I'm looking forward to trying ... ;^)

See you next week,

	Eddy.