So you like my ideas too! > > There are at least 2 posts a month by someone who decides that they > want to re-wire Python syntax. Usually it's because of some particular > idiom they're used to in another language,
And python does not use idioms from other languages? > in other cases it's because > they've got some particular issue with "consistency". My impression was that "consistency" was important to Python. "Consistency" improves my productivity because I don't have to keep referring to the manual. Things work the way I expect them to work. > The ideas are > *never* fully thought out or materialized, and they invariably invite > scorn from the user community. Of course, they're thought out: They're stolen from another language. Specifically, the language in which I am most productive. > The poster is almost always a Python > beginner (I don't know if thats true in your case or not). Only a couple years at it, but that is true of all of the languages that I know, I guess... > > Arbitrary changes to syntax are never going to fly. It's a lost cause. The changes are not arbitrary. They are logical, consistent, less arbitrary and thus more productive. If such changes are a lost cause, that is too bad, because it implies that Python will stagnate. Unfortunately that appears the case. Though backward compatibility is not an issue (3.0 breaks stuff), I have learned that there are many pythonistas who make up lots of arbitrary reasons not to change anything, even if it is for the better. > If you can't handle Python without your pet changes, fork it and write > your own version and let the marketplace of ideas decide if its > useful. Apparently you missed my statement about loving Python. I love it because it is the second most productive language I have ever used, though I do believe it has the potential to be the greatest ever by far. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list