[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: Standardizing more key bindings? |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:08:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:14:49PM +0700, Yuri Khan wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 at 12:41, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > > So what? Their command loop does do "read, then eval, then print".
> >
> > No, it doesn't. It parses and executes a command, but it is
> > misleading to describe that as "read, then eval" in those languages.
> >
> > > Whether the "read", the "eval", and the "print" part are made available
> > > to the language or only used by the interactive loop
> >
> > Those conceptual parts are implemented separately in Lisp because Lisp
> > exposes them. In a language which does not expose them to users, they
> > may not exist as separate parts in the code.
>
> Python has ast.parse(), compile() and exec(), all three exposed in the
> standard library. Can we please continue to use the REPL term for
> Python, even though there is an additional intermediate step between
> reading and evaluation.
The difference is that in Python, this is an after-thought. In the Lisps,
it's a design principle. One can feel that :-)
Cheers
- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Standardizing more key bindings?, Dmitry Gutov, 2020/11/01