Re: using "private" parameters as static storage?

[Joe Strout]

Steve wrote:

This is a pretty bizarre requirement, IMHO. The normal place to keep
such information is either class variables or instance variables.

Holy cow, I thought it was just Chris, but there were half a dozen
similar responses after that.

I'm starting to see a pattern here... any time Python lacks a feature,
the Python community's party line is "You don't need that feature!"

I understand embracing the language rather than fighting against it,
but that can be taken too far -- if somebody expresses a need, and is
earnestly asking for input on a real programming problem, I'd think
the nice thing would be to explore the programming problem with them,
rather than arguing with them that they don't need what they claim
they need. Especially if they're not somebody who just stumbled out
of college, but has been writing software professionally for decades,
and may have a better idea than anybody else what their needs are.

Hypothetically speaking, is it possible that there could be any
language feature Python doesn't have, which might be useful to anyone
in any situation? If so, how would you recognize such a rare beast?

Thanks,
- Joe

[George Sakkis]

Re: using "private&q uot; parameters as static storage?

On Nov 13, 9:22 pm, Joe Strout <j...@strout.ne twrote:

Steve wrote:

This is a pretty bizarre requirement, IMHO. The normal place to keep
such information is either class variables or instance variables.

>
Holy cow, I thought it was just Chris, but there were half a dozen  
similar responses after that.
>
I'm starting to see a pattern here... any time Python lacks a feature,  
the Python community's party line is "You don't need that feature!"
>
I understand embracing the language rather than fighting against it,  
but that can be taken too far -- if somebody expresses a need, and is  
earnestly asking for input on a real programming problem, I'd think  
the nice thing would be to explore the programming problem with them,  
rather than arguing with them that they don't need what they claim  
they need.

The burden of proof is on you to show that none of the several ways to
solve your problem in Python is good enough. So far your argument is
"I really miss that I can't do it exactly like in my pet-language".

Hypothetically speaking, is it possible that there could be any  
language feature Python doesn't have, which might be useful to anyone  
in any situation?

Sure; true multithreading, macros, non-crippled lambda, optional
static typing are some reasonable features people miss in Python. The
topic of this thread just isn't one of them.

George