Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Henrik Motakef]

Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> > OK, I understand that the Python mindset is really _a lot_ different
> > than the Lisp mindset in this regard.
> 
> As in, no lisper will ever admit that a currently existing feature is
> considered a misfeature?-)

You might want to search google groups for threads about "logical
pathnames" in cll :-)

> Guido has already declared that ONE concept of interfaces (or 
> typeclasses, or protocols, etc) _will_ eventually get into Python -- but
> _which one_, it's far too early to tell. 

A propos interfaces in Python: The way they were done in earlier Zope
(with "magic" docstrings IIRC) was one of the things that led me to
believe language extensibilit was a must, together with the phletora
of SPLs the Java community came up with, either in comments (like
JavaDoc and XDoclet) or ad-hoc XML "configuration" files that grow and
grow until they are at least turing-complete at some point. (blech)

People /will/ extend the base language if it's not powerfull enough
for everything they want to do, macros or not. You can either give
them a powerfull, documented and portable standart way to do so, or
ignore it, hoping that the benevolent dictator will someday change the
core language in a way that blesses one of the extensions (most likely
a polished variant of an existing one) the "obvious", official one.

It is the difference between implementing a proper type system and
extending lint to check for consistent use of the hungarian notation
at the end of the day.