On May 23, 3:35 am, Charles Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 22 May 2008 13:30:07 Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
>
> > ...
> > >From Armstrong's book: The expression Pattern = Expression causes
>
> > Expression to be evaluated and the result matched against Pattern. The
> > match either succeeds or fails. If the match succeeds any variables
> > occurring in Pattern become bound.
>
> > It is a very powerful idea and one which (along with the concurrency
> > and message passing from Erlang) has been implemented for python :-
>
> > http://candygram.sourceforge.net/
>
> > I've been reading the Erlang book and I have to say it has given me a
> > lot of insight into python...
>
> Although when comparing Candygram with Erlang it's worth noting that Candygram
> is bound to one processor, where Erlang can operate on multiple processors.
> (I'd been planning on using Candygram for a project at one point, but this
> made it unusable.)
lol, nice name. Also surprisingly relevant to the thread:
candygrammar: n.
A programming-language grammar that is mostly syntactic sugar; the
term is also a play on ‘candygram’. COBOL, Apple's Hypertalk language,
and a lot of the so-called ‘4GL’ database languages share this
property. The usual intent of such designs is that they be as English-
like as possible, on the theory that they will then be easier for
unskilled people to program. This intention comes to grief on the
reality that syntax isn't what makes programming hard; it's the mental
effort and organization required to specify an algorithm precisely
that costs. Thus the invariable result is that ‘candygrammar’
languages are just as difficult to program in as terser ones, and far
more painful for the experienced hacker.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
