> We can and do preempt someone sabotaging keywords by not letting anyone override them. > That is the whole point of using reserved keywords. Some languages allow you to change > important words, some don't. Guido made a conscious decision to make certain words keywords, > and to not let anyone change them, I believe to avoid the sorts of issues I have brought up. > You are talking about removing one of the most important and long-standing protections the > language has in place. That is not a small change.
Making names keywords requires that keywords also be names. If Guido is open to introducing keywords that are currently names, it cannot be lost on him that some code will use names that are now keywords. If your position is that Guido shouldn't introduce keywords that are currently used as names at all, fair enough; that'd be my first choice too. But, if we are going to do it, I have a strong preference for a specific approach. -- Carl Smith carl.in...@gmail.com On 16 May 2018 at 20:40, Todd <toddr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Carl Smith <carl.in...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Not if you need to make changes in the same tens of thousands of lines >> file. >> >> But what has that got to do with the the syntax of the new code? The old >> code is >> what it is. >> >> > Again, because you end up with hard-to-debug issues through no fault of > your own. > > >> I did think after I replied that `True` wasn't actually reserved until >> more recently, but >> the point still stands: You would be able to reference the name *as >> defined* in an >> external library, and yeah, it could refer to anything, but that's kinda >> the point. We >> have to assume the library does something sane with the name. We can't >> preempt >> an employee sabotaging `True`. >> >> > We can and do preempt someone sabotaging a keywords by not letting anyone > override them. That is the whole point of using reserved keywords. Some > languages allow you to change important words, some don't. Guido made a > conscious decision to make certain words keywords, and to not let anyone > change them, I believe to avoid the sorts of issues I have brought up. You > are talking about removing one of the most important and long-standing > protections the language has in place. That is not a small change. > > >> -- Carl Smith >> carl.in...@gmail.com >> >> On 16 May 2018 at 16:40, Niki Spahiev <niki.spah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 16.05.2018 16:05, Andrés Delfino wrote: >>> >>>> IMHO, it would be much easier to learn and understand if keywords can >>>> only >>>> be used by escaping them, instead of depending where they occur. >>>> >>> >>> There can be 2 escape characters '\' and '.' >>> >>> Niki >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Python-ideas mailing list >>> Python-ideas@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
