Re: weird macro params issue

On 2008.05.22., at 1:14, Jonathan Revusky wrote:

> It simply uses the value of y as defined at that point as a constant
> default value. It doesn't change if y changes. I wasn't 100% sure of
> this, which shows how deep my knowledge of python is, but the above
> semantics didn't surprise me at all. I have the sense (illusory) that
> I understand the mindset behind Python. (Kind of reminds me of those
> Christian fundamentalist bumper stickers you see in the states "What
> would Jesus do?" except "What would Guido do?")

Yep, you can develop that.

> BUt seriously, this really has me thinking that, unless we're in a
> competition to have the funkiest dynamic language around (perhaps kind
> of like trying to be more catholic than the pope) we should take a
> step back from this and just think about how desirable it is really to
> have these semantics. I would tend to think that the Guido way, how it
> works in python, is the best, most straightforward option, and we
> should go that way. There is the matter of this having worked (or kind
> of) in 2.3. But I can't believe we would break many templates by
> disallowing it. It's probably fairly rare that people rely on this.

I don't know. I guess I'm okay with that too, it's just that I figured  
out that this is something that can be make to work fairly easily, and  
all it does is adds to the expressive power of the language in a  
nonintrusive manner (if you don't use it, you don't see it). If,  
however others consider this to be too "funky", well, let's go for the  
fail-always... I wonder what's Daniel's opinion...

Attila.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/