Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder2.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!xlned.com!feeder7.xlned.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.022 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.96; '*S*': 0.00; 'arguments': 0.07; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'did.': 0.16; 'executable.': 0.16; 'function?': 0.16; 'message- id:@dough.gmane.org': 0.16; 'proceeds': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'subject:import': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'code,': 0.18; 'code.': 0.20; 'project,': 0.24; 'pass': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'execution': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.28; 'header:X-Complaints-To:1': 0.28; 'chris': 0.28; 'comparison': 0.29; 'no,': 0.29; 'function': 0.30; 'code': 0.31; 'from:addr:yahoo.co.uk': 0.32; 'print': 0.32; 'comments': 0.33; 'goes': 0.33; 'function.': 0.33; 'handle': 0.33; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.33; 'that,': 0.34; 'received:org': 0.36; 'except': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'engineering': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'does': 0.37; 'why': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'mark': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'apply': 0.39; 'little': 0.39; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'matter': 0.61; 'back': 0.62; 'more': 0.63; 'here': 0.65; 'alike.': 0.84; 'fucking': 0.84; 'quote,': 0.84; 'springs': 0.84; 'received:2': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: Mark Lawrence Subject: Re: from future import pass_function Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:43:48 +0100 References: <5010adb8$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-2-98-207-157.as13285.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120726-0, 26/07/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1343288602 news.xs4all.nl 6920 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:43548 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:26068 On 26/07/2012 05:03, Ross Ridge wrote: > Ross Ridge wrote: >> No, they're very much alike. That's why all your arguments for print >> as function also apply just as well to pass a function. Your arguments >> had very little to do what what print actually did. > > Chris Angelico wrote: >> Except that print / print() is executable. Execution proceeds through >> your code, comes to a "print", and goes off to handle that, then comes >> back to your code. But "pass" doesn't have code attached to it. Why >> should it be a function? > > For consistancy with print. What it does doesn't matter any more than > what print did mattered. > > Ross Ridge > My all time favourite engineering quote, from the UK Ptarmigan tactical communications project, springs to my mind here regarding your comments about the comparison of print and pass. "I might not be a mechanical engineer, but that's fucking wrong". -- Cheers. Mark Lawrence.