Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> The usual response is "That's not the Python way." That's not calling
>>>> someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand
>>>> the Python way.
>>> "That is not the Python way", is just saying "Python doesn't have it"
>>> in other words. So it can't be the answer to why python can't have
>>> something.
>>
>> No, it isn't. At least, it isn't when I use it. A language is more
>> than just an accumulation of features. Well, a good language is more
>> than just an accumulation of features - there's a philosophy
>> underlying the language, that guides what features are added and what
>> features aren't. Other languages have other philosophies, and wind up
>> being good for other things.
>
> But how this philosophy influences design is not straight forward.
>
> The ternary operator was thought of to go against the philosopy,
By who?
> and now seems to be at least compatible with the philosophy.
>
> So when someone asks why it is not in python, saying "It is not
> the python way" still doesn't answer the question, because the
> person would probably still like to know what in his proposal
> is against the python philosophy and why.
Sometimes, such things are easy to explain, and they'll generally get
that explanation. Sometimes they aren't, so you're reduced to
pointing out similar - but more obvious - things that aren't in the
language, and "import this", and suggesting that they try it for a
while and see how it works
>> My vision
>> isn't perfect - I've changed my mind about things: I used to want real
>> macros, and I initially disliked list comprehensions. My vision
>> doesn't agree with the developers - notably including Guido's - a lot
>> of the time. On the other hand, they haven't done anything that
>> strikes me as so wrong that I want to spend the time required working
>> on Python rather than in Python to allow me to get it fixed.
>
> I see nothing wrong with that. But I would apreciate it, should
> you be more open about something being your personal vision.
> To me something like: "That is not the python way" comes accross
> as: "You just don't understand about python, if you ask/propose
> something like that"
That's essentially true. In some cases, the reasons can be explained
without understanding about python. In some cases, they can't.
> It gives me the feeling the person is saying something like: "Python
> is like this, I like it this way, so nobody better suggests this
> changes".
You're carrying things a step to far, going from explaining an overly
brief statement to imagining a motive for said statement.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
