Re: Function once: concern

Another one in the outbox...

Mark Hahn wrote:

>>From: Paul Prescod
> 
> 
>>If we don't have time to do this then maybe we should just leave the 
>>feature out of Prothon 1.0. As pure sugar it seems delayable. We 
>>shouldn't rush the design of something that can wait...
> 
> 
> At this point all I can say is that I definitely dislike the PEP 318
> proposals and I somewhat like my proposals.  PEP318 look like ugly
> kludges added on as an afterthought and they are inflexible.

Let's see if we can quantify this. What sorts of things can be done in
your syntax that cannot be done in PEP318 syntax.

> I don't agree with your argument about 'once'.  Many sugar keywords
> replace very little typing.  

Is this true for anything inherited from Python?

> ... Look at the 'prop' keyword.  It is not just
> the typing, it is readability.  The 'once' keyword greatly enhances
> readability by getting rid of all the "if" noise.

Out of a thousand lines of average Prothon code, how many lines will the
"once" keyword save?

  Paul Prescod