On Aug 28, 5:30 pm, "Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How is that making things easier for application programmers?
We have different definitions of "application programmer". For me a typical application programmer is somebody who never fiddles with metaclasses, which are the realm of framework builders. But the borders are fluid, I agree. > >Maybe you would need to duplicate a couple of lines and/or to introduce > >an helper function, > > ...which then has to have an agreed-upon protocol that all metaclass > authors have to follow... which we already have... but which you're > proposing to get rid of... so we can re-invent it lots of > times... in mutually incompatible ways. :) Notice that I was discussing an hypothetical language. I was arguing that in principle one could write a different language from Python, with single inheritance only, and not lose much expressivity. I am not advocating any change to current Python. My point was in language design: I want to know how much I can remove from a language and still have something useful, in the spirit of the famous Saint-Exupery quote. Michele Simionato _______________________________________________ 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
