"John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Maybe "fat and happy" wasn't the best choice of words
Depends on the reaction you wanted ;-) > However. I see nothing in the existing Python 3000 PEP that does > anything other than inspire a yawn. Sure, it's a bunch of cleanup, and > some of it is definitely needed. What I don't see is the inspired leap > forward that will once again put Python in the forefront rather than > simply being one choice among many. My response is more than a yawn, but yes, the most exciting thing that I see is completion of the generator revolution started a few years ago. > What I want to see in Python 3000 is an AST based language [much more > snipped] I presume you mean AST as in human-comprehension oriented AST as in http://docs.python.org/lib/module-compiler.ast.html. If I understand correctly, you are proposing that the essence of a Python program be its logical tree structure rather than its surface presentation. And this would be understood even if the developers also promoted a particular presentation as the 'preferred', 'official', or 'commonly shared' presentation. And this might include a tree serialization format different from the presentation test format. Yes, this is an interesting idea. Perhaps, if you can flesh it out a bit and leave out stuff like 'fat and happy', you could write and submit a PEP. Some of the developers are trying to finish the AST compiler before 2.5. If this means what I think it does, compiling ASTs direct to bytecode, it would be an essential component of your proposal and make it more possible. But I don't know much more about it. I also know little about what intermediate forms PyPy used to compile Python code. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list