kj a écrit :
In <4a4e2227$0$7801$426a7...@news.free.fr> Bruno Desthuilliers
<bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> writes:
kj a écrit :
(snipo
To have a special-case
re.match() method in addition to a general re.search() method is
antithetical to language minimalism,
FWIW, Python has no pretention to minimalism.
Assuming that you mean by this that Python's authors have no such
pretensions:
"There is real value in having a small language."
Guido van Rossum, 2007.07.03
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-July/008663.html
There are some differences between "small" and "minimal"...
So there.
BTW, that's just one example. I've seen similar sentiments expressed
by Guido over and over and over: any new proposed enhancement to
Python must be good enough in his mind to justify cluttering the
language. That attitude counts as minimalism in my book.
And in mine, it counts as "keeping the language's evolution under
control" - which is still not the same thing as being "minimalist". If
Python really was on the "minimalist" side, you wouldn't even have
"class" or "def" statements - both being mostly syntactic sugar. And
let's not even talk about @decorator syntax...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
