In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Sunnan] >> >> [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to >> program. > >No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been abandoned a >few years ago. > >My honest feeling is that it would be a mis-representation of Python, >assertng today that this is still one of the Python's ideals.
Mind providing evidence rather than simply citing your feelings? Yes, there's certainly redundancy in Python right now, but a large portion of that will go away in Python 3.0. So where's the abandonment of the ideal? -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "The joy of coding Python should be in seeing short, concise, readable classes that express a lot of action in a small amount of clear code -- not in reams of trivial code that bores the reader to death." --GvR -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
