Frank Samuelson a écrit : (snip) >> Arbitrary changes to syntax are never going to fly. It's a lost cause. > > > The changes are not arbitrary.
Which ones ? > They are logical, consistent, less > arbitrary and thus more productive. For who ? > If such > changes are a lost cause, that is too bad, because > it implies that Python will stagnate. Unfortunately that appears the case. This is totally ridiculous. Let's see : list comprehensions, a new, widely improved object system, with metaclasses, and the descriptor protocol which brings customisable computed attributes -, lexical closures, iterators, generator expressions, syntactic sugar for function decorators, contexts (the 'with' statement), and coroutines. Just to name a few, and only talking of production releases. Which other language grew so many new features in the last seven years ? Java ? C ? C++ ? Lisp ? VB (lol) ? (snip) >> 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. I don't think you'll gain that much productivity by fighting against the language trying to write <whatever-other-language> in it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list