> I find using 'unless' makes some things more readable. Here our ways part (see Jeremy's post) :-). > Perhaps, perhaps not. Did the addition of hygienic macros to Scheme > make it an entirely different language? How would I know? I've never used Scheme. (Note: you don't score points in the Python world by admiring Scheme. :-) > ... > I don't think it would be possible to add hygienic macros to C/C++, > and I think it would be a bad idea adding pre-processor-based macros > to Python. However, Scheme and Dylan both provide high-level > environments where macro systems have been instituted and tools > created to successfully debug code using them. The really issue is > comparing Python to Lisp/Scheme/Dylan, and seeing where it's dichotomy > between runtime and compile time leave the programmer. I'd like to see more real use cases then. > ... > Well, adding any type of macro system will add compile time > complexity. The question is whether or not the benefits make that > extra complexity worth-while. More use cases please! (Unless you give up now. :-) --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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