Andy Sy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Err... thank you once again for being redundant, reiterating what is > already pretty much dead clear to everyone and saying nothing new > in general.
And yet, here I notice that you've still not described a syntax or its execution semantics. Instead you've chosen to spend your time insulting me. Please continue, I'm sure it will make people want to read your future posts all the more. Ultimately, Guido is the judge of what is or is not Pythonic. Without a description of what you want, no one can be for or against it, and ultimately, you are playing yourself to be very much like every other first-poster in python-dev or python-3000; 'I think Python would be better with feature/syntax/language construct X'. This is not a mortal sin. I think it's about time to use a Tim Peters inspired closing. to-inattentive-to-really-be-insulted-ly y'rs - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
