Josiah Carlson writes: > If you make such a suggestion, I would offer that you create a new PEP, > because this discussion has gone beyond PEP 351, and has wandered into > the realm of "What other kinds of objects would be interesting to have > in a Python-like system?"
Noam Raphael replies: > That is a good suggestion, and I have already started to write one. It > takes me a long time, but I hope I will manage. My thanks to both of you... following this conversation has been an educational experience. Just for the record, I wanted to chime in with my own opinion formed after following the full interchange. I think Noam's propsal is very interesting. I like the idea of allowing both "frozen" (ie, immutable) and mutable treatments for the same object. I think that C++'s version of this concept (the "const" modifier) has, on balance, been only a very limited success. I find myself convinced by Noam's claims that many common use patterns either (1) only use mutables, or (2) only use immutables, or (3) only use immutable copies temporarily and avoid mutating while doing so. Any such use patterns (particularly use (3)) would benefit from the presence of an efficient method for creating an immutable copy of a mutable object which avoids the copy where possible. However... it seems to me that what is being described here is not Python. Python is a wonderful language, but it has certain characteristics, like extremely dynamic behavior and close integration with underlying system methods (C in CPython, Java in Jython, etc) that seem to me to make this particular feature a poor fit. That's OK... not all languages need to be Python! I would encourage you (Noam) to go ahead and explore this idea of yours. You might wind up building a new language from scratch (in which case I strongly encourage you to borrow _syntax_ from Python -- its syntax is more usable than that of any other language I know of). Or perhaps you will prefer to take CPython and make minor modifications. This kind of experimentation is allowed (open source) and even encouraged... consider Christian Tismer's Stackless -- a widely admired variant of CPython which is unlikely to ever become part of the core, but is nevertheless an important part of the vivrant Python community. You might even be interested in starting, instead, with PyPy -- an large project which has as its main goal producing an implementation of Python which is easy to modify so as to support just this kind of experimentation. You are also welcome to submit a PEP for modifying Python (presumably CPython, Jython, Iron Python, and all other implementations). However, I think such a PEP would be rejected. Building your own thing that works well with Python would NOT be rejected. The idea is interesting, and it _may_ be sound; only an actual implementation could prove this either way. -- Michael Chermside _______________________________________________ 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
