python3: 'where' keyword

[Carl Banks]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Carl Banks" <invalidemail at aerojockey.com> writes:
> > > So do you approve of the movement to get rid of the print
statement?
> >
> > Any little incremental change in Python you could make by having or
not
> > having a print statement would be minor compared to the H-Bomb of
> > ugliness we'd get if suites of statements were to be allowed inside
> > Python expressions.  Having or not having a print statement might
> > violate some small aspect of the Zen, but it won't rape the whole
list.
>
> How about macros?  Some pretty horrible things have been done in C
> programs with the C preprocessor.  But there's a movememnt afloat to
> add hygienic macros to Python.  Got any thoughts about that?

How about this: Why don't you go to a Python prompt, type "import
this", and read the Zen of Python.  Consider each line, and whether
adding macros to the language would be going against that line or for
it.  After you've done that, make an educated guess of what you think
I'd think about macros, citing various Zens to support your guess.

Then I'll tell you what my my thoughts about it are.


> > So I don't know what point you're trying to make.
>
> Why should you care whether the output of a macro is ugly or not,
> if no human is ever going to look at it?

I don't.


> > But to answer your question, I would prefer a Python without a
print
> > statement, since a print method could do anything the print
statement
> > could.
>
> A print -method-?!!
[snip example]
>
> I've heard of people wanting to replace print with a function, but
> hadn't heard of replacing it with a method.  Are you trying to turn
> Python into Ruby?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't think it
over thoroughly.  I was thinkging would be a method of file like
objects.

stdout.print("hello")


-- 
CARL BANKS