12 ms·
That would be tricky. Ruby has optional parens for function calls, but it makes it tricky to get a reference to a method without calling it. We have to write "f
by actsasbuffoon 12y ago
That would be tricky. Ruby has optional parens for function calls, but it makes it tricky to get a reference to a method without calling it. We have to write "foo.method(:some_method_name)", while the Python equivalent is simply "foo.some_method_name".
You might be able to require parens for methods with no arguments, but optional parens with arguments. It might require some clever hacks in the parser, but I suspect it's possible. The bigger question is whether or not the result would be Pythonic.
- ant6n 12y agoMaybe they could just re-introduce print x as syntactic sugar for galling a print function. Like in Matlab, where the operators (+, *, ..) are just syntactic sugar for calling functions add, mul, ..
- DrJosiah 12y agoThe Python 3.x print function and 2.x print statement automatically called the __str__ method on an object to get a representation to print to screen. The result is then sent to the appropriate file handle for actual printing (which can be overridden).