On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 6:38:56 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 31-03-16 om 13:57 schreef Chris Angelico: > > Okay. I'll put a slightly different position: Prove that your proposal > > is worth discussing by actually giving us an example that we can > > discuss. So far, this thread has had nothing but toy examples (and > > bogoexamples that prove nothing beyond that the author knows how to > > mess with Python - fun, but not a strong argument on either side). > > Give us some real meat to work with, instead of these drips of > > tantalizing blood. > > What a strange request. Whether or not something is worth discussing > is a personal judgement. So there can be no proof of such a thing. > I would say: judge for yourself and act accordingly.
Not been following this thread much And not much interest in the suggestion/request Just thought I'd give a take on what may be the motivation for this There is the allure of One-Fundamental-Data-structure Lisp calls that 'list' [40 years after with more fanfare and less clarity replicated as XML] Math calls that 'function' Even more fundamental in CS than in math That maps are same as functions is standard math. In python one interconverts data→code by going from dict d to d.get code→data by memoization/caching How about a Grand Unified Theory? [Just to be clear -- not my interest or wish] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
