Python3k extended grammar

[Hrvoje Niksic]

m.faassen at vet.uu.nl (Martijn Faassen) writes:

> Manus Hand <mjhand at concentric.net> wrote:
> > This is a dumb question, and I know I shouldn't be following Roy's
> > post with it, since my question is only tangentially related, but....
> 
> > (By the way, I agree with Roy that the less new syntax and fewer
> > new keywords the better!  Anyway, as to my own question....)
> 
> I agree here too. While the types-SIG has come up with many good
> thoughts, I don't think the proposed syntax is ideal yet.

The proposed syntax looks like a Pascal-inspired abomination.  I hope
it dies as soon as possible.

> Nobody knows yet. It's possible that it'll be case insensitive,

*vomit*

So every instance of "foo = Foo()" where Foo is the class and foo is
the instance will have to be changed to something really ugly.

> Oh, and 1/2 might give you a float.

Yuck.

> Right; if it was required to declare variables, I'd be scared too.
> Luckily it's never been the plan to make such declarations required.
> They're always optional.

I'm still scared of people with a Java mindset declaring always
everything.  But then again, I guess the absence of method overloading
will effectively prevent that.  Unless the types SIG plans to add that
too.