On Apr 14, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Adam DePrince wrote:
> Perl on the other. Python is sort of in the middle. The question
> being
> asked here is "Does using plain strings for symbols make us too much
> like Perl, or will fixing it by introducing a symbol type make us too
> much like Java.
That's a reasonable way of looking at it, I suppose. But note how
Common Lisp, which defies the Perl-Java language spectrum in some
sense, uses symbols in lots of ways, none of which I'm suggesting for
Python. That is, symbols are a really fundamental type in CL, and I'm
not suggesting that radical an injection of them into Python.
> Personally, I rather like the direction of the symbols idea, but am
> unsure if I like the :symbol form for the literal. I give it a +0.5.
Yeah, I don't think that syntax really works either. I'm not sure
*which* syntax works best, but I think the notion of literal syntax
is less important than whether people are interested in this as a
language addition at all.
(I decided I don't like the :foo syntax after starting at this for a
while:
if arg == :GET:
dispath()
The :foo: is rather ghastly.)
Cheers,
Kendall
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
