The Artima Developer Community
Sponsored Link

Weblogs Forum
Python 3K or Python 2.9?

62 replies on 5 pages. Most recent reply: May 8, 2008 12:17 PM by David Johnson

Welcome Guest
  Sign In

Go back to the topic listing  Back to Topic List Click to reply to this topic  Reply to this Topic Click to search messages in this forum  Search Forum Click for a threaded view of the topic  Threaded View   
Previous Topic   Next Topic
Flat View: This topic has 62 replies on 5 pages [ « | 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ]
Charles Merriam

Posts: 1
Nickname: chasm
Registered: Dec, 2007

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9? Posted: Dec 11, 2007 6:59 PM
Reply to this message Reply
Advertisement
FYI. Guido posted a reply on his blog. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=214325

Aren't multiple feeds so much better than the old usenet days?

Sci Phi

Posts: 1
Nickname: scipio
Registered: Apr, 2008

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9? Posted: Apr 26, 2008 7:16 PM
Reply to this message Reply
What real ways are there of influencing the development of Python? Doing a fork for the purpose of competition is frowned upon, and usually quite rightly so, but do people often write experimental forks to try out an idea, e.g. dumping self? Do serious numbers of people try using such forks, in much the same way that linux folk often load unstable kernels just in order to play with the latest ideas? I've never heard of open source projects holding elections, so does the average joe competent programmer actually have any control whatoever over the fate of his favourite programming language?

Regards, Tuts.

David Johnson

Posts: 2
Nickname: dhj
Registered: May, 2008

Re: Python 3K or Python 2.9? Posted: May 8, 2008 12:17 PM
Reply to this message Reply
I think the main point people are making about the "explicit" self is it's _not_ always explicit. It's actually the "inconsistently explicit" self. It's explicit if you're defining a method and implicit if you're calling one. This is the problem. Why isn't it explicit all around? Well, if it was then typing self all the time would get ridiculous and noone would use python. Plus, which self would you be referring to when you called an intance.method(self,a,b,c)? The self of the instance or the self that was explicitly defined in the method from which you are calling?

As it is typing self all the time is only ridiculous inside methods. Which is still a good bit, but people tolerate it because otherwise python is an excellent language. If explicit self were gotten rid of or made optional a whole lot of new programmers would adopt the language. I know "consistent" in the python community really means "only one way to do things" in contrast with perl, but a significant change like that might require a version where it's optional as not to break every bit of code out there. Although, maybe not, fixing legacy code would just require a regular expression substitution of 's/( *self *,/(/'... and voila, compatible code (the self.variable references within a method would still work). We could also get rid of the inconsistency with number of parameters _explicitly_ called in a method call equalling the number of parameters _implicitly_ identified by the interpreter.

--David

Flat View: This topic has 62 replies on 5 pages [ « | 2  3  4  5 ]
Topic: Python 3K or Python 2.9? Previous Topic   Next Topic Topic: Physical Dependencies


Sponsored Links



Google
  Web Artima.com   

Copyright © 1996-2014 Artima, Inc. All Rights Reserved. - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Advertise with Us