Russ P. a écrit :
On Jun 10, 1:04 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you hope to get a general agreement here in favor of a useless
keyword that don't bring anything to the language, then yes, I'm afraid
you're wasting your time.
Actually, what I hope to do is to "take something away" from the
language, and that is the need to clutter my identifiers with leading
underscores.
I find that I spend the vast majority of my programming time working
on the "private" aspects of my code, and I just don't want to look at
leading underscores everywhere. So I usually just leave them off and
resort to a separate user guide to specify the public interface.
I'll bet many Python programmers do the same. How many Python
programmers do you think use leading underscores on every private data
member or method, or even most of them for that matter?
First point : please s/private/implementation/g. As long as you don't
get why it's primary to make this conceptual shift, the whole discussion
is hopeless.
Second point : I've read millions of lines of (production) python code
these last years, and I can assure you that everyone used this
convention. And respected it.
I'll bet not
many. (See the original post on this thread.) That means that this
particular aspect of Python is basically encouraging sloppy
programming practices.
Bullshit. Working experience is here to prove that it JustWork(tm).
What I don't understand is your visceral hostility to the idea of a
"priv" or "private" keyword.
Because it's at best totally useless.
If it offends you, you wouldn't need to
use it in your own code. You would be perfectly free to continue using
the leading-underscore convention (unless your employer tells you
otherwise, of course).
My employer doesn't tell me how to write code. I'm not a java-drone. My
employer employ me because he is confident in my abilities, not because
he needs some monkey to type the code.
The point is not *my* code, but the whole free python codebase. I
definitively do not want it to start looking anything like Java. Thanks.
I get the impression that Python suits your own purposes and you
really don't care much about what purpose others might have for it.
Strange enough, every time I read something like this, it happens that
it comes from someone who is going to ask for some fundamental change in
a language used by millions of persons for the 15+ past years just
because they think it would be better for their own current project.
I
am using it to develop a research prototype of a major safety-critical
system. I chose Python because it enhances my productivity and has a
clean syntax, but my prototype will eventually have to be re-written
in another language. I took a risk in choosing Python, and I would
feel better about it if Python would move up to the next level with
more advanced features such as (optional) static typing and private
declarations.
I'm sorry, but I don't see any of this as being "a move up to the next
level".
But every time I propose something like that,
fundamental change in the language for your own (perceived, and mostly
imaginary) needs, that is...
I get all
kinds of flak from people here who do their hacking and care little
about anyone else's needs.
No one needs another Java. Now what happens here is that *you* come here
explaining everyone that they need to adapt to the way *you* think
things should be.
With a few relatively small improvements, Python could expand its
domain considerably and make major inroads into territory that is now
dominated by C++, Java, and other statically compiled languages. But
that won't happen if reactionary hackers stand in the way.
So anyone not agreeing with you - whatever his experience, reasons etc -
is by definition a "reactionnary hacker" ? Nice to know.
Side note: I've been looking at Scala, and I like what I see. It may
actually be more appropriate for my needs, but I have so much invested
in Python at this point that the switch will not be easy.
So instead of taking time to learn the tool that would fit your needs,
you ask for fundamental changes in a language that fits millions other
persons needs ? Now let's talk about not caring about other's needs...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
