Some language proposals.

[Antoon Pardon]

Op 2004-02-25, Paul Prescod schreef <paul at prescod.net>:
> Jacek Generowicz wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>
> In Python functions are objects but objects are not functions. In (e.g.) 
>   Scheme the opposite is true.
>
>> ... I fail to see how
>> this has any bearing on the use of closures ... 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 ... because the very fact that it is
>> broken probably contributes to people not using it much.
>
> But the more important point is that people do not NEED it much. Guido 
> writes hundreds of lines of Python code per week. If he often ran into 
> situations where a mutable closure would make a big difference then he 
> would presumably find some way of doing it. The people who want this 
> seem most often to be people trying to import their coding styles from 
> another language.

I think this can be turned around. People who don't want this included
are people who want python to be used in a "pythonic" style.

My idea is that there is nothing wrong with a laguage that supports
different coding styles. Personnaly I switch styles according to
how view the solution to the problems I have to solve. Sometimes
I view such a solution in a very object oriented way, sometimes
I don't. So when I envision a particular solution, that is best
implemented in a particular style, why shouldn't I use that style
just because I program in python.

-- 
Antoon Pardon