Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Joachim Durchholz]

prunesquallor at comcast.net wrote:
> Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz at web.de> writes:
> 
>>There's also a narrow and a broad sense here: obviously, it's not
>>possible to type check all Lisp idioms, but are we allowed to present
>>alternative idioms that do type check and serve the same purpose?
> 
> I don't have a problem with this, but I don't want to split hairs on
> what constitutes an `idiom' vs. what constitutes a complete rewrite.

When it comes to comparing whether static types are "getting in the 
way", even a complete rewrite would be OK according to my book.
Sticking to the original code will, of course, make a more compelling 
case - not because that is better, but because it's better understood.

> If a change involves pervasive edits, say, for instance, editing all
> callers of some function to pass an extra argument, or wrapping a
> conditional branch around all uses of an object, that would not be
> an alternative idiom.

If you mean that Lisp has a point if it can process an arbitrary number 
of parameters in one line of code, while a non-Lisp would need an extra 
handler for each parameter: then I agree.
Though that isn't usually needed for currying languages. (I know of a 
single instance in the standard Haskell libraries where it's needed - 
and in that case, it's about taking apart tuples of various arities, not 
about taking apart parameter lists which is usually a snap.)

Regards,
Jo