On Feb 18, 2017 02:30, "Mikhail V" <mikhail...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 February 2017 at 04:13, Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbu...@python.org.br> wrote: > I don't see the point in continuing this thread. How does this add to the syntax discussion? I was replying to Nicks quite vague comments which were supposed to be critics. There is no point discussing an idea on this mailing list if there is no chance it is going to be implemented. You can talk about it on the general list, as has been suggested to you before. But once an idea has been largely rejected, as this one has, this mailing list is no longer the right place for it. >> "burden to learn" - I hope you are not serious :) > No, this is serious. > You duplicate the syntax possibilities of one ot he > most basics syntactic elements How do you count duplicate? And what is the sense to speak about 'burden to learn' before the new syntax get approved? If it will be the new syntax, then you will need to learn the new syntax only. The existing syntax will not be removed. It would break all python code ever written in the most fundamental way. That is never going to happen. You want throw iterables in it, do it: for e over Sequence : I see this probably could have some ambiguity problems but is it such an unsolvable problem? For integers write e.g. like this: for i over 0, N : or for i over *N : What is the problem? So anyone learning python would need to know both syntaxes to be able to work with other peoples' code. But we would end up with two syntaxes that do exactly the same thing except with either an integer or two or three integers separated by commas, in which case they behave completely differently. That will be confusing even to experienced developers.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
