On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:28:12 +0200, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the reason I think this keeps coming up, and why Guido's "just > use a class" argument doesn't really address the actual problem that's > taking place. I agree this argument is not generally applicable in every case, but why not in this specific situation? > In short: in *theory*, a rebinding operator or "nonlocal" declaration is > unnecessary. In *practice*, having one seems quite useful every time > you wander down the path that leads to having to rewrite your code just > because the language won't let you do that one tiny thing - I think this argument is a too general one. To me it is too close to "let's add every possible feature we can find, because it might be usefull to someone" :) One of the things I like about python is that it doesn't do this, and therefore the manual stays relatively small and I don't have to remember all kinds of rarely used features to make best use of the language. (I assume this is not a point of debate. repeating: Python is not Lisp ;-) ) Most of the arguments I've seen on the list are about 'how can we implement this', I'd like to see more arguments on whether this should be implemented at all. I was hoping someone would come up with a good example, so does anyone have one?? > - or so it feels like to the person who's experiencing it. Have you ever been that person, or come across such a situation? O, and I don't think the inc() example is a good one. In this incrementer the function call is all about the side effects, it's even in the name 'increment'. Incrementing is useless unless you increment /something/, so this should be better implemented as a class. _______________________________________________ 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