Python 3K or Python 2.9?

[Paddy]

Yep. For example, some people whose legal name is "Alessandro" (which
no American is ever going to be able to spell right -- ONE L, TWO S's,
NOT an X or a J instead, "DRO" ending rather than "DER", etc), might
choose to avoid the hassle and go by "Alex" (just to make up a case...).

Alex

.... and someone whose nickname is Paddy which is very common, and who
finds it hard to remember birthdates decides to add the days in the
month that his first two children were born on to his used name and
now only gets worried near his partners birthday

- Paddy.

 

[Aahz]

Aahz a écrit :

For the record, I usually don't give a damn about what
name/nickname/whatever peoples use.

Then why mention pseudonyms at all?

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Aahz a écrit :

(snip)


Then why mention pseudonyms at all?

My fault - I'm sometimes a bit overreactive, and Mr TheFlyingDutchman,
(aka zzbbaadd) was starting to get on my nerves. I know I shouldn't have
post this one, and I apologize.

 

[Ron Adam]

I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

Yes, there are a couple of things that could have been changed. But from
what I can tell there are a number of reasons why things where chosen to be
the way they are.

Two of those reasons is to make the core C code smaller and easier to
maintain and also to make it easier to understand how things work.
Exposing the inner workings as visible python code vs hidden C code helps
both of those.

Another benefit of exposing more of the class machinery of Pythons objects
as python code, is it makes it possible to modify more of how things work
directly with python code. A good way to see how this works is studying
how descriptors and properties work.

http://users.rcn.com/python/download/Descriptor.htm

You will find there is much more of python written in python than it may
first seem. In some cases the built in classes and modules are written in
C, yet they still work as if they are written in Python.

So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in such
a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter, then it
might be considered.

What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more choices
on how I might solve a particular problem.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other parts
of python such as the libraries that would be of much more practical benefit.

Regards,
Ron

 

[Ron Adam]

I am not talking about the way it does it, but rather, the way it
could do it or... could have done it. That requires no knowledge of
how the interpreter currently does it unless I am proposing something
that no interpreter in the world could ever do.

Yes, there are a couple of things that could have been changed. But from
what I can tell there are a number of reasons why things where chosen to be
the way they are.

Two of those reasons is to make the core C code smaller and easier to
maintain and also to make it easier to understand how things work.
Exposing the inner workings as visible python code vs hidden C code helps
both of those.

Another benefit of exposing more of the class machinery of Pythons objects
as python code, is it makes it possible to modify more of how things work
directly with python code. A good way to see how this works is studying
how descriptors and properties work.

http://users.rcn.com/python/download/Descriptor.htm

You will find there is much more of python written in python than it may
first seem. In some cases the built in classes and modules are written in
C, yet they still work as if they are written in Python.

So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in such
a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter, then it
might be considered.

What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more choices
on how I might solve a particular problem.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other parts
of python such as the libraries that would be of much more practical benefit.

Regards,
Ron

 

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Ron Adam a écrit :

(snip)
So if you can find a way to do things like removing self in python in
such a way that it doesn't require adding more to the Core interpreter,
then it might be considered.

By who ? As far as I'm concerned, I don't want 'self' to be removed, and
I'm probably not the only one here.

What I've found is as my skills improve, I take more advantage of being
able to modify and/or introspect how things work. This allows more
choices on how I might solve a particular problem.

The changes required by removing self would make most of this either
painfull or near impossible AFAICT.

I also think there a lots of improvements that could be made to other
parts of python such as the libraries that would be of much more
practical benefit.

indeed.

 

[Ron Adam]

Ron Adam a écrit :

By who ? As far as I'm concerned, I don't want 'self' to be removed, and
I'm probably not the only one here.

The term "might be considered" in this case is a very very small
possibility. It would need to be a very good solution which has some very
nice benifits over the current way. As you say below, it's probably not
possible.

This was more of a challenge to get anyone who thinks it's worth doing to
learn more about how python works rather than just propose arbitrary ideas.

The changes required by removing self would make most of this either
painfull or near impossible AFAICT.

Right, It would have a cascade effect in many places.

indeed.

Cheers,
Ron