On 5 October 2016 at 23:40, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 October 2016 at 14:27, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: >> For small scripts this is still useful. Not everybody writes huge programs, >> which needs to adhere to style guides and QA. > > Sure. But convenience in small scripts and the REPL typically isn't a > good enough argument to justify a language change.
A useful rule of thumb: if a proposed syntax change would be accompanied by a PEP 8 addition that says "Never use this in code you expect anyone else to read or have to maintain", it's not going to be approved. If a change requires a PEP 8 update *at all*, that's a significant mark against it, since it provides clear evidence that the addition is increasing the cognitive burden of the language by requiring devs to make syntactic decisions that aren't related to how they're modeling the particular problem they're trying to solve. For purely local use, folks also have a lot more freedom to adopt Python supersets that may limit code shareability, but make what they write more amenable to them personally without losing access to the rest of the Python ecosystem. Hylang shows that that freedom goes at least as far as "I'd really prefer to be writing in LISP". Project Jupyter's "!" notation and xon.sh both show that it's possible to integrate easier access to the system shell into a Python-like language. Compared to those, locally modifying the token stream to inject ": INDENT" pairs when the if and for keywords are encountered between an opening "for" keyword and a closing ":" keyword would be a relatively straightforward change that only impacted folks that decided they preferred that particular flavour of Abbreviated Python to the regular version. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
