On Monday 2005-03-14 12:09, Alex Martelli wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2005, at 10:57, Gareth McCaughan wrote: > > > of way as it's distracting in C or C++ seeing > > > > Thing thing = new Thing(); > > > > with the type name appearing three times. > > I think you can't possibly see this in C:-), you need a star there in > C++, and you need to avoid the 'new' (just calling Thing() should do it > -- maybe you're commixing with Java?), but still, I do agree it looks > uncool... no doubt a subtle ploy by Java and C++ designers to have you > use, instead, the preferable interface-and-factory idioms such as:
Er, sorry about the various slips of detail. And I don't even use Java. Bah! (But it looks even worse without the "new" intervening...) > IThing thing* = thingFactory(); > > rather than declaring and instantiating concrete classes, which is just > _so_ three years ago;-) :-) > Back to the Python world, I don't particularly love [x for x in ...] by > any means, but I surely hope we're not tweaking the syntax for such > tiny gains in the 2.4 -> 2.5 transition. Wasn't 2.5 "supposed to be" > mostly about standard library reorganizations, enhancements, etc? Were > there some MAJOR gains to be had in syntax additions, guess that could > be bent, but snipping the [<name> for ...] leading part seems just such > a tiny issue. (If the discussion is about 3.0, and I missed the > indication of that, I apologize). When I say I'd like it, I don't mean "we should change it now", only that it would be nice for it to be there. Stability matters more than optimality sometimes, and now may well be such a time. -- g _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
