> Personally I would find the addition of:
>
> 1) [] extendend function syntax to def (and possibly class and 2)
This is separate.
> 2) a statement that captures and extends what class does now ("my" proposal)
Can you remind me of this?
> 3) a 'with' statement for semantics like those of CL with- macros
> (Michael Hudson has some ideas on this)
I'd like to hear more about this.
> more pythonic.
Pythonic is as pythonic does. Or, as was said in another thread, talk
is cheap. :-)
> General syntax extensibility is another level of identity crisis for
> the language <wink>.
Agreed. We're not going there. But I admit I'm inspired by Ruby's
blocks (poorly explained though their exact semantics are in the Ruby
literature I've come across).
--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