Ka-Ping Yee wrote: > Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote: >> Well, with it you could create suites with _any_ introducing >> identifier. Consider: >> >> with: >> (...) >> >> synchronized: >> (...) >> >> try: >> (...) >> >> transaction: >> (...) >> >> Do you understand my concern? It would be very, very hard to discern >> these "user-defined statements" from real language constructs. > > I think part of the debate is about whether that's good or bad. > I happen to agree with you -- i think a keyword is necessary -- > but i believe some people see an advantage in having the flexibility > to make a "real-looking" construct.
Yes. But it would only be crippled, as the "keyword" would have to be a pre-constructed generator instance which cannot be easily reused as a library export (at least, it is not intended this way). > As i see it the argument boils down to: Python is not Lisp. > > There are good reasons why the language has keywords, why it > distinguishes statements from expressions, uses indentation, and > so on. All of these properties cause Python programs to be made > of familiar and easily recognizable patterns instead of degenerating > into a homogeneous pile of syntax. Big ACK. Reinhold -- Mail address is perfectly valid! _______________________________________________ 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
