I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the language.

[namekuseijin]

Carl Banks wrote:
> On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin <namekusei... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages, any extra
>> syntax gets converted into the core lambda constructs.
> 
> So?  The user still uses that syntax, so how can you claim it doesn't
> matter?
>>  In Lisp
>> languages, that syntax is merely user-defined macros, but in Haskell
>> it's builtin the compiler for convenience.
> 
> I don't even know what you're saying here

I'm saying syntax is nothing special.  They are user-defined, as 
functions.  And it all gets converted into functions.  Functions matter, 
syntax is irrelevant because you can do away with it.

In Haskell, point free style of programming shows almost no signs of 
predefined syntax at all.  It's all function composition.

In functional programming languages, predefined syntax is mostly 
irrelevant.  In Python and other imperative languages, it's absolutely 
necessary.  That's my point.