Attack a sacred Python Cow

[Iain King]

On Jul 29, 5:33 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:44 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 4:46 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As I said, I could write a pre-processor myself to
> > > implement it in less than a day.
>
> > So WHY DON'T YOU WRITE IT ALREADY?
>
> I'm working on something else right now if you don't mind, but I'll
> get to it in good time.
>
> Conceptually, the matter is simple. All I need to do is to grab the
> first formal argument of each def, then search for occurrences of any
> word in the body of the def that starts with a dot, and insert that
> first argument in front of it.
>
> I expect the "hard" part will be breaking up the body of the def into
> "words." I could just split each line on white space, except for
> situations like
>
> x+=.zzz
>
> So I need to account for the fact that operators do not need to be
> surrounded by spaces. That's the hardest part I can think of off the
> top of my head.
>
> Maybe I'll encounter an insurmountable problem and realize that the
> idea can't work in general. If so, then so be it. Certainly, no one on
> this thread has anticipated such a problem. Had someone pointed out an
> actual technical problem with the idea, I would have gladly thanked
> them. But I got a load of irrelevant crap instead, not to mention
> being addressed as "boy."
>
> > If you're meeting so much resistance to your idea, why not scratch
> > your own damn itch and just do it?
>
> > Or doesn't that afford you as many chances to insult others while
> > feeling smugly superior?
>
> This coming from a guy who insulted my reading comprehension ability
> -- when he was the one who was wrong!

Are you actually this stupid?  I mean, you were entertaining while you
were mouthing of and insulting your betters, but now you're gonna
complain the second anyone insults you (and I mean, 'boy' - what an
insult!).  Never mind that you're never gonna get off your ass to
write a PEP, which would be rejected on language design grounds anyway
(as demonstrated by alex23's link - the one you aren't
comprehending).  The most irritating thing is that I like the idea of
being able to use '.x = 10' type notation (and have been for a long
time), but the person arguing for it is an insufferable buffoon who's
too dense to understand a cogent argument, never mind make one.  So
great, thanks, the chances of this (or a VB 'with'-like 'using'
keyword) ever making it into the language get smaller every time you
fire up your keyboard.  Nice work.

Iain

p.s. am looking forward to your post whining about the invalid reasons
your PEP got rejected, in the slim hope you actually write one.