On 14 May 2018 at 15:02, Clint Hepner <clint.hep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2018 May 14 , at 6:47 a, Daniel Moisset <dmois...@machinalis.com> > wrote: > > > > Following up some of the discussions about the problems of adding > keywords and Guido's proposal of making tokenization context-dependent, I > wanted to propose an alternate way to go around the problem. > > My main objection to what follows is that it doesn't seem to offer any > benefit over the current practice of appending an underscore (_) to a > keyword to make it a valid identifier. > There is a key difference: if an optional keyword is added (through a "from __future__ import some_keyword"), I still can use in a simple ways names from modules that do not have the future import enabled. Using just an underscore suffix or similar name *change* is fine when the language is static. But when the language changes, and I can not modify all the third party libraries, being able to refer to *the original name* instead of a modified one is a significant need that can not be covered by "just add a _ suffix". Best, D. -- <https://www.machinalis.co.uk> Daniel Moisset UK COUNTRY MANAGER A: 1 Fore Street, EC2Y 9DT London <https://goo.gl/maps/pH9BBLgE8dG2> P: +44 7398 827139 <+44+7398+827139> M: dmois...@machinalis.com <dmois...@machinalis.com> | S: dmoisset <http://www.linkedin.com/company/456525> <http://www.twitter.com/machinalis> <http://www.facebook.com/machinalis> <https://www.instagram.com/machinalis.life/> Machinalis Limited is a company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 10574987.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
