On 3 Sep 2009, at 23:33 , Greg Ewing wrote:
Xavier Morel wrote:
Methods yes (and that's one of the few Smalltalk design "features"
I consider truly dumb, considering it has message cascading)
Cascading is something different -- it's for sending
multiple messages to the *same* receiver. It's
Xavier Morel wrote:
Methods yes (and that's one of the few Smalltalk design "features" I
consider truly dumb, considering it has message cascading)
Cascading is something different -- it's for sending
multiple messages to the *same* receiver. It's not
dumb to have both.
--
Greg
_
On 2 Sep 2009, at 00:10 , Greg Ewing wrote:
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:09 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
"We" are not Erlang, Smalltalk, OCaml or Haskell either, sadly.
IIRC, the default return value of a Smalltalk method is
self, not the last thing evaluated.
Methods yes (and that's one of
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:09 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
"We" are not Erlang, Smalltalk, OCaml or Haskell either, sadly.
IIRC, the default return value of a Smalltalk method is
self, not the last thing evaluated.
(And no, that's not going to happen in Python either --
the BDFL has rej
On 1 Sep 2009, at 15:25 , Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:09 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
"We" are not Erlang, Smalltalk, OCaml or Haskell either, sadly.
Well, feel free to prefer an unreadable language if you want :)
Smalltalk or Haskell are hardly inherently unreadable.
Le mardi 01 septembre 2009 à 15:09 +0200, Xavier Morel a écrit :
> "We" are not Erlang, Smalltalk, OCaml or Haskell either, sadly.
Well, feel free to prefer an unreadable language if you want :)
Having implicit return values is certainly not something which follows
Python's design principles. Even
