UserLinux chooses Python as "interpretive language" of choice

[John Roth]

"Hartmut Goebel" <h.goebel at crazy-compilers.com> wrote in message
news:3fe43c97$0$19069$9b4e6d93 at newsread2.arcor-online.net...
> John Roth wrote:
> > "Steve Lamb" <grey at despair.dmiyu.org> wrote in message
> >>    If you had run it you would have understood it.  You didn't run it,
> >>    did you?
> >
> > It doesn't matter. As you can see by my reply to Bengt,
>
> It does matter, since the _output_ of the result (which Steve posted for
> your convenience) contains the answer to your question.

I've been around long enough that that level of "cute"
is simply irritating. I'm well aware of "explicit is better
than implicit."

> > the crux of the issue is that, in Ruby, the function call
> > syntax is *optional.*
>
> The crux of this 'option' is that it's ambiguos whether you wnat to
> _access_ or _call_ the function object. See line 12 of the output
> meantioned above to know why Python will never implement such an
> 'option'. [And BTW I probably will never use a language having such an
> 'option'.]

And if you read the rest of my comment, you would know
that I am not suggesting that Python do so, for implementation
reasons. There are ways around the ambiguity you mention,
but they will not come out unless there is a *thoughtful*
discussion, and in any case they would definitely break
backwards compatability.

>   > What I'm missing, however, is any *thoughtful*
> > discussion of the issues involved. Your [perjoritive
> > adverb deleted] response makes it clear that you
> > didn't think of the issues, you just reacted.
>
> *walking to the fuel-station, filling my many-years-unused flame-thrower
> for the upcoming flame-battle*

Why bother?

John Roth

>
> > John Roth
>
> -- 
> Regards
> Hartmut Goebel
>
> | Hartmut Goebel               | We build the crazy compilers |
> | h.goebel at crazy-compilers.com | Compiler Manufacturer        |
>