On 12 September 2012 02:14, Steven D'Aprano < steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> And again, Joshua's original post is not available from my provider. > Joshua, I suspect that something about your post is being seen as spam > and dropped by at least some providers. > I am sorry to ask this, but in the meantime can someone who isn't spam-filtered repost my messages? I'll give them a cookie! To repeat my previous post, I'm using GMail and posting to python-list@python.org. If that is what I'm meant to be doing, I'll try another email address. > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 08:52:10 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Joshua Landau > > <joshua.landau...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Well, the problem is that a lot of collisions aren't predictable. > >> "locals()['foo'] = 2", for example. If it weren't for Python's annoying > >> flexibility* > > I can't see your footnote there, so you may have already covered this, > but for the record, what you call Python's "annoying flexibility" is > fundamental to Python's programming model and done so for good reasons. > The ability to shadow built-ins is, at times, incredibly useful rather > than annoying. > > The world is full of bondage and domination languages that strongly > restrict what you can do. Python doesn't need to be another one of them. > Python's optimizing compiler, PyPy, is able to optimize code very well > without such restrictions. I agree :P. The footnote should portray that I said that in jest. > >> I would definitely do something very close to what you > >> suggest. Remember that "locals()" isn't Python's only introspection > >> tool. How about "from foo import *"? > > I wouldn't call "import *" an introspection tool. At least, no more so > than print. Yeah, I meant "things that can change the current scope without explicitly naming the changes". "print" doesn't do that, but you are correct in what you say. <snip> > but I suppose globals() works the same way. > > > > Inline functions? I like this idea. I tend to want them in pretty much > > any language I write in. > > What do you mean by in-line functions? If you mean what you literally > say, I would answer that Python has that with lambda. > > But I guess you probably mean something more like macros. No, just multi-line lambda. Macros, if my knowledge of lower-level languages is valid, would be sorta' silly in Python.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
