On 1 Apr 2005 20:00:13 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[Sunnan]
>>>
>>> [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to
>>> program.
>>
>>No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been abandoned a
>>few years ago.
>>
>>My honest feeling is that it would be a mis-representation of Python,
>>assertng today that this is still one of the Python's ideals.
^^^^^--in particular?? That makes for a complex sentence ;-)
>
>Mind providing evidence rather than simply citing your feelings? Yes,
>there's certainly redundancy in Python right now, but a large portion of
>that will go away in Python 3.0. So where's the abandonment of the
>ideal?
>--
>Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
>
>"The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable
>classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code --
>not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death." --GvR
Regards,
Bengt Richter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
