"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > > ... > > I agree that supporting user-defined syntax threatens to fragment the language. > To avoid that, perhaps it would be best to leave what are in effect > user-definable hooks in Python's lexical space. I really don't see how it is better to fragment the semantic space by encouraging people to project random meanings onto operators with no intrinsic meanings. Given the choice, I would prefer to have the language explicitly fragment into domain-specific variants with their own grammars. At least then I know that I'm really dealing with a new language that is Pythonic, but not Python. DTML, a Python XSL and this matrix Python are examples of languages that might benefit from an easy way to be hosted on the Python VM and interact with pure Python modules. Also a statically typed Python variant might be intersting. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus It's difficult to extract sense from strings, but they're the only communication coin we can count on. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4