Re: weird macro params issue

Thursday, May 22, 2008, 11:52:06 AM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> 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...

I can't tell a use-cases for this right now...

-- 
Best regards,
 Daniel Dekany


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/