[Python-ideas] parser in stdlib

[Guido van Rossum]

On 5/11/07, Aaron Brady <castironpi at comcast.net> wrote:
> I suspect the true reason lies more with Sakkis' post [5/10 23:26 us
> central].  A mimetic structure such as Python will sit somewhere between
> restriction and liberty.  Best to be deliberate in choosing a place on the
> continuum.  But where, exactly?

What on earth is a "mimetic structure"? Please keep the jargon
understandable for the rest of us, at least if you want to be heard.

> Discouraging customized syntax is one thing.  Prohibiting it altogether is
> another extreme.  The current positioning lies with the latter.  Put
> `parser' in to encourage the adventurous explorer, -while- keeping native
> dynamic constructs disabled in order to keep up unity.
>
> I do not hold that we lift all restrictions.  Rather, merely -reduce- the
> number of hoops you must jump through to get at Python internals.

Depends on which internals you're talking about. Most internals are
very close to the surface. Syntax happens to be hermetic though.
Perhaps you need to find a different language for what you want?

> If you think that everybody will jump-to and create their own Python the
> very first day you let a second ray of light shine in, you've underestimated
> Python.  For one thing, we -want- to stick together, and will on our own.
> Present the option, and you'll only get better suggestions, thenceforth.
>
> The current state is too restrictive.

That's easy for you to say. Have you tried (*seriously* tried) to
specify such a thing? (For Python, maintaining full backwards
compatibility.) In this community, code talks. Good understandable
specs are sometimes allowed to speak. Wild ideas, especially if they
involve "let others figure out how to design and implement my idea,
but I need it now" are shown the door.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)