> > So in order to make this work in Python the *entire* standard library > had to be modified to support it? That's worse than I thought. > > Only the objects that made sense with the use of with.
> > The python approach is superior if you believe, as Guido apparently > does, that the useful set of syntactic constructs is small and well- > bounded. If you think, as most lispers do, that syntactic manipulation > is the essence of expressive power then the work it takes to add *one* > new keyword to a language like python seems farcical. > > I didn't say it was better, I said it couldn't be replicated with a simple macro. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
