Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> christian wrote:
>
>
>>>I usually mention "import" in the first hour (before methods),
>>>and nobody has ever had any problem with that...
>>
>>Well, same here, but that might change, since the string
>>module is nearly obsolete. You can show reasonably
>>powerful stuff(*) without a single import.
>>
>>(*) and that's what you need to get people interested.
>
>
> I usually start out with something web-oriented (which means
> urllib). how about adding a "get" method to strings? or an "L"
> prefix character that causes Python to wrap it up in a simple
> URL container:
>
> print url"http://www.python.org".read()
*puke*
> but in practice, if you really want people to get interested,
> make sure you have a domain-specific library installed on the
> training machines. why care about string fiddling when your
> second python program (after print "hello world") can be:
Yes, I know. I didn't want to make a point, just to point
out that it is possible to show neat stuff without import.
Sure, the next thing I show is COM stuff or formatted stock
market reports, using urllib, xml... -- no point.
--- the rest below is not to Fredrik but the whole thread ---
I'd like to express my opinion at this place (which is as good
as any other place in such a much-too-fast growing thread):
The following statements are ordered by increasing hate.
1 - I do hate the idea of introducing a "$" sign at all.
2 - giving "$" special meaning in strings via a module
3 - doing it as a builtin function
4 - allowing it to address local/global variables
Version 4 as worst comes visually quite close to
languages like Perl. In another post, Guido answered
such objection with "grow up". While my emotional
reaction would be to reply with "wake up!", I have some
rationale reasons why I don't like this:
I have to read and sometimes write lots of Perl code.
The massive use of "$" gives me true headache. I don't
want Python to remind me of headaches.
One argument was that "$" and the unembraced usage in "$name"
is so common and therefore easy to sell to Python newbies.
Fine, but no reason to adopt this overly abused character.
Instead, I'm happy that exactly "$" is nowhere used in
formatting.
I don't want to make Python similar to something, but to
keep it different in this aspect. Like the triple quotes,
the percent formatting exists rather seldom in other
languages, and I love to use templates for makefiles,
scripts and whatsoever, where I don't have to care too
much about escaping the escapes.
With an upcoming "$" feature, I fear that "%" might get
abandoned in some future, and I loose this benefit.
I agree with any sensible extension/refinement of the "%" sign.
I disagree on using "$" for anything frequent in Python.
I don't want to see variable names as placeholder inside
of strings. Placeholders should be dictionary string keys,
but this dictionary must be obtained explicitly.
I do like the allvars() proposal.
crap-py -ly - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 pager +49 173 24 18 776
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
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