On 6/28/06, Talin <talin at acm.org> wrote: > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Let's just drop the switchable subroutine proposal. It's not viable. > > Perhaps not - but at the same time, when discussing new language > features, let's not just limit ourselves to what other languages have > done already. Well, Python 3000 is explcitly not intended as a platform for arbitrary experimentation with feature invention (read PEP 3000). I've gotten quite a bit of mileage out of borrowing from other languages instead of inventing my own stuff, so I don't want to go out inventing as a replacement of researching options that have already been tried elsewhere. > Forget subroutines for a moment - the main point of the thread was the > idea that the dispatch table was built explicitly rather than > automatically - that instead of arguing over first-use vs. > function-definition, we let the user decide. I'm sure that my specific > proposal isn't the only way that this could be done. But anything that makes the build explicit is going to be so much more ugly. And I still think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. -- --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