3 ms·

print >>sys.stderr, "fatal error" Considering this is this old version of what you copied, I don't think anything has been lost...

by j2d2 18y ago

mojuba 18y ago
I never liked that either, but the new version is physically longer and requires more typing. Moreover, I couldn't find any change in 3.0 that results in less typing. I might have missed something of course, but this announcement doesn't seem to be something to be excited about. I was waiting, for example, lambdas to be allowed to have compound statements. Python, a nice language otherwise, could have been improved in many ways, none of which is found in 3.0. Instead, the spirit of Python is coming closer and closer to Java: you are not supposed to do this, says Python to you, because it's a bad practice and can lead to errors. I'm disappointed and I think I'd rather wait for another, more concise nobraces programming language.
- jauco 18y ago
  from pep 3099: At one point lambda was slated for removal in Python 3000. Unfortunately no one was able to come up with a better way of providing anonymous functions. And so lambda is here to stay. But it is here to stay as-is. Adding support for statements is a non-starter. It would require allowing multi-line lambda expressions which would mean a multi-line expression could suddenly exist. That would allow for multi-line arguments to function calls, for instance. That is just plain ugly. Thread: "genexp syntax / lambda", http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/001042.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/0010...
  - mojuba 18y ago
    I understand there are syntactic obstacles, in fact I've been following these discussions, but... I'm very sorry, who cares?
- j2d2 18y ago
  > you are not supposed to do this, says Python to you, because it's a bad practice and can lead to errors. Isn't that one of the main themes of Python? That you can expect another programmer to have solved the same problem almost the same way..? I figure this is how that happens.
  - mojuba 18y ago
    Curiously, this approach is usually welcomed in corporate environments. Java and C# are on the same shelf in this regard. It limits creativity by leaving no doors for new ways of doing things. Certain class of programmers just can't bear when they are told what's right and what's wrong in programming.
    - attack 18y ago
      Java, especially if you get into the OOP patterns fun, can present a million ways of doing things. Java is terrible about this.
anewaccountname 18y ago
sys.stderr.write("fatal error\n")
- simonw 18y ago
  You'll still be able to do that.

print >>sys.stderr, "fatal error" Considering this is this old version of what you copied, I don't think anything has been lost...

by j2d2 18y ago

print >>sys.stderr, "fatal error" Considering this is this old version of what you copied, I don't think anything has been lost...

mojuba 18y ago

I never liked that either, but the new version is physically longer and requires more typing. Moreover, I couldn't find any change in 3.0 that results in less typing. I might have missed something of course, but this announcement doesn't seem to be something to be excited about. I was waiting, for example, lambdas to be allowed to have compound statements. Python, a nice language otherwise, could have been improved in many ways, none of which is found in 3.0. Instead, the spirit of Python is coming closer and closer to Java: you are not supposed to do this, says Python to you, because it's a bad practice and can lead to errors. I'm disappointed and I think I'd rather wait for another, more concise nobraces programming language.

jauco 18y ago
from pep 3099: At one point lambda was slated for removal in Python 3000. Unfortunately no one was able to come up with a better way of providing anonymous functions. And so lambda is here to stay. But it is here to stay as-is. Adding support for statements is a non-starter. It would require allowing multi-line lambda expressions which would mean a multi-line expression could suddenly exist. That would allow for multi-line arguments to function calls, for instance. That is just plain ugly. Thread: "genexp syntax / lambda", http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/001042.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/0010...
- mojuba 18y ago
  I understand there are syntactic obstacles, in fact I've been following these discussions, but... I'm very sorry, who cares?
j2d2 18y ago
> you are not supposed to do this, says Python to you, because it's a bad practice and can lead to errors. Isn't that one of the main themes of Python? That you can expect another programmer to have solved the same problem almost the same way..? I figure this is how that happens.
- mojuba 18y ago
  Curiously, this approach is usually welcomed in corporate environments. Java and C# are on the same shelf in this regard. It limits creativity by leaving no doors for new ways of doing things. Certain class of programmers just can't bear when they are told what's right and what's wrong in programming.
  - attack 18y ago
    Java, especially if you get into the OOP patterns fun, can present a million ways of doing things. Java is terrible about this.

anewaccountname 18y ago

sys.stderr.write("fatal error\n")

simonw 18y ago
You'll still be able to do that.