What about letting x.( ... ? ... ) be equivalent to ( ... x ... )

[Steve Holden]

al wrote:
> Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
> 
>>if you have a fear of introducing new local variables, you have problems
>>that cannot be solved by syntax.
> 
> 
> Dear Fredrik,
> 
> I have read the original messages on fr.comp.lang.python, and I don't 
> understand your answer.
> 
> It is not about a fear of introducing new local variables, but for me it 
> is an elegant solution to a common problem, to avoid creation of useless 
> variables (what in french we call "variables muettes", like indexes in 
> loops who are just there because some langages level is too low).
> 
> It also avoid the increase of parenthesis depth, and so the readability 
> is enhanced.
> 
> And it solve a problem that in all object oriented langages, a method 
> that process 2 or more different classes of objets belongs just to one 
> of those classes.
> 
> All this kind of problems appears often to me (and in different 
> langages), and contrarily to you, I'm very impressed by the compacity 
> and elegance of the solution. I think it would be nice if implemented in 
> different langages (because it breaks nothing), and firstly Python.
> 
> Best regards,
> Al
> 
> PS : sorry for my approximative english, but my natural langage is french.

It seems to me that what you proposed was a "solution", that seems 
obvious only to you, to a problem perceived only by you.

I am afraid you would have to work rather harder to persuade me that 
there is a problem, let alone that you have found the solution to it.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC                     www.holdenweb.com
PyCon TX 2006                  www.python.org/pycon/