Some language proposals.

[Michael Hudson]

Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowicz at cern.ch> writes:

> Paul Prescod <paul at prescod.net> writes:
> 
> > I disagree. Closures are rare in Python because Python is primarily an
> > OOP language.
> 
> I disagree, Python is a multi-paradigm language ... I fail to see how
> this has any bearing on the use of closures ... 

Really?  Paul is saying "if you are in a situation in Python where you
want to use a read-write closure, you'll probably be happier if you
use an object-based solution instead".

Now you may *disagree* with this point, but I find it hard to believe
you don't *see* it.

I agree with him, FWIW.  Using closures to fake objects sucks (in
scheme or CL as much as in Python).

Can you post an example of using a read-write closure that you think
wouldn't be better off as an object (invent syntax as necessary...).
No-one was very convincing at this last time it went around on
python-dev.

> all of which is irrelevant to my original point, which was to note
> out that saying "people don't use it much" is not a very convincing
> argument for not fixing something that is broken ... 

OK, how about the argument above?

> because the very fact that it is broken probably contributes to
> people not using it much.

Well, true as this may be, I hypothesise that it wouldn't be used much
if it wasn't "broken" and if it was used most of the time you'd wish
it wasn't.  Not a particularly verifiable statement, I'll grant, but
things like this is what Guido is for :-)

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  Structure is _nothing_ if it is all you got.  Skeletons _spook_
  people if they try to walk around on their own.  I really wonder 
  why XML does not.                     -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp