Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Python (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f43-python.html)
-   -   python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword] (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t340176-python-and-macros-again-was-python3-where-keyword.html)

michele.simionato@gmail.com 01-11-2005 10:06 AM

python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Paul Rubin wrote:
> How about macros? Some pretty horrible things have been done in C
> programs with the C preprocessor. But there's a movememnt afloat to
> add hygienic macros to Python. Got any thoughts about that?


"Movement" seems quite an exaggeration. Maybe 2-3 people made some
experiments, but nobody within the core Python developers seems
to be willing to advocate the introduction of macros.

> Why should you care whether the output of a macro is ugly or not,
> if no human is ever going to look at it?


But at least some human eye have to look at it!
<rethorical-question>
Did you ever debug a macro?
</rethorical-question>

More seriuosly, I have given some thought to the issue, and I am very
much against the introduction of macros in Python.

Here are a few reasons:

1. I like defmacro in Lisp. Problem is, Lisp is an s-expression based
language, Python is not. We cannot implement defmacro in Python and
even if we could, if would be too ugly to be used (at least, IMHO).

2. One could proposed hygienic pattern-matching macros in Python,
similar to
Scheme syntax-rules macros. Again, it is not obvious how to
implement pattern-matching in Python in a non-butt-ugly way. Plus,
I feel hygienic macros quite limited and not worth the effort.

3. We would add to Python the learning curve of macros and their
subtilities and we do not want it.

4. Macros would complicate a lot Python module system.

5. We have Guido providing a good syntax for us all, why we should be
fiddling with it? More seriously, if some verbosity is recognized
in the language (think to the "raison d'etre" of decorators, for
instance) I very much prefer to wait for Guido to take care of
that, once and for all, than having 100 different custom made
solutions based on macros.

I am sure I could find other reasons if I think a bit more, but these
should suffice for the moment ;)

What I would be interested in is a Lisp/Scheme implementation
compiling to Python bytecode, but I am not aware of any project
in that direction.


Michele Simionato

P.S. some pointers for people interested on the topic:

http://logix.livelogix.com/ (a Python-like language with macros)
https://sourceforge.net/projects/pymac/ (an experimental
Dylan-inspired macro system for Python)


Paul Rubin 01-11-2005 09:07 PM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
michele.simionato@gmail.com writes:
> 2. One could proposed hygienic pattern-matching macros in Python,
> similar to
> Scheme syntax-rules macros. Again, it is not obvious how to
> implement pattern-matching in Python in a non-butt-ugly way. Plus,
> I feel hygienic macros quite limited and not worth the effort.


It wasn't obvious how to do it in Scheme either. There was quite
a bit of head scratching and experimental implementation before
there was consensus.

> 3. We would add to Python the learning curve of macros and their
> subtilities and we do not want it.


I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of
__metaclass__, which we already have. If it was done in a way that
most of us would just rely on a few standard ones, that would be fine.

> 4. Macros would complicate a lot Python module system.


I don't see how, but maybe I'm missing something.

> 5. We have Guido providing a good syntax for us all, why we should be
> fiddling with it? More seriously, if some verbosity is recognized
> in the language (think to the "raison d'etre" of decorators, for
> instance) I very much prefer to wait for Guido to take care of
> that, once and for all, than having 100 different custom made
> solutions based on macros.


Every time some newbie asks an innocent "how do I ..." question, we
see unbelievably horrid answers from gurus. Just check the FAQ about
conditional expressions, etc. I just don't see Python syntax changes
as forthcoming.

> What I would be interested in is a Lisp/Scheme implementation
> compiling to Python bytecode, but I am not aware of any project
> in that direction.


But that sounds like a bizarre idea. Python bytecode is just a
CPython artifact, not part of the language. And it's not even that
good an artifact. Good Lisp/Scheme implementations compile to native
code that beats the pants off of CPython bytecode. It would make much
more sense to have a Python implementation that compiles Python to
S-expressions and then lets a high performance Lisp or Scheme system
take care of the rest.

michele.simionato@gmail.com 01-12-2005 05:56 AM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Paul Rubin:
> michele.simion...@gmail.com writes:


>> <about Scheme macros>


> It wasn't obvious how to do it in Scheme either. There was quite
> a bit of head scratching and experimental implementation before
> there was consensus.


Actually I am not convinced there is consensus yet, i.e. there is a
non-negligible minority of schemers convinced that original Lisp
macros where better, not to talk of common lispers ;)

>> 3. We would add to Python the learning curve of macros and their
>> subtilities and we do not want it.


> I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of
> __metaclass__, which we already have.


To me, learning macros *and their subtilities* was much more difficult
than learning metaclasses.

>> 4. Macros would complicate a lot Python module system.


> I don't see how, but maybe I'm missing something.


Go to comp.lang.scheme and google for "macros and module system";
you will get everything you want to know and much more!

>> 5. We have Guido providing a good syntax for us all, why we should

be
>> fiddling with it? More seriously, if some verbosity is recognized
>> in the language (think to the "raison d'etre" of decorators, for
>> instance) I very much prefer to wait for Guido to take care of
>> that, once and for all, than having 100 different custom made
>> solutions based on macros.


> Every time some newbie asks an innocent "how do I ..." question, we
> see unbelievably horrid answers from gurus. Just check the FAQ about
> conditional expressions, etc. I just don't see Python syntax changes
> as forthcoming.


Well, I see this as a positive fact. If a syntax is contrived (such as
a ternary
operator, for instance) it is better *not* to have it than to have one
hundred custom
made syntaxes. At the end, we are just talking about syntax sugar here,
not about
lack of functionality.

>> What I would be interested in is a Lisp/Scheme implementation
>> compiling to Python bytecode, but I am not aware of any project
>> in that direction.


> But that sounds like a bizarre idea. Python bytecode is just a
> CPython artifact, not part of the language. And it's not even that
> good an artifact. Good Lisp/Scheme implementations compile to native
> code that beats the pants off of CPython bytecode. It would make much
> more sense to have a Python implementation that compiles Python to
> S-expressions and then lets a high performance Lisp or Scheme system
> take care of the rest.


This is a bizarre idea if you want to make Python run faster. It is not
so bizarre
if what you want is to have access to Python from Lisp/Scheme in the
same sense
Jython has access to Java.


Michele Simionato


Simo Melenius 01-12-2005 02:03 PM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
michele.simionato@gmail.com writes:

> This is a bizarre idea if you want to make Python run faster. It is
> not so bizarre if what you want is to have access to Python from
> Lisp/Scheme in the same sense Jython has access to Java.


And it sounds very nice if you prefer writing Lisp code (or resort to
it if needed) and run it on a cross-platform environment that's
available almost everywhere, and access a large standard library of
modern utilities.


br,
S

Paul Rubin 01-12-2005 02:16 PM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
michele.simionato@gmail.com writes:
> > I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of
> > __metaclass__, which we already have.

>
> To me, learning macros *and their subtilities* was much more difficult
> than learning metaclasses.


I guess I've only used Lisp macros in pretty straightforward ways,
that weren't hard to understand. That's enough for anything I've
needed. But we don't hear much about __metaclass__ because almost
nobody understands it.

> Go to comp.lang.scheme and google for "macros and module system";
> you will get everything you want to know and much more!


OK, I might do this.

> Well, I see this as a positive fact. If a syntax is contrived (such
> as a ternary operator, for instance) it is better *not* to have it
> than to have one hundred custom made syntaxes. At the end, we are
> just talking about syntax sugar here, not about lack of
> functionality.


I think the idea is there would be some experimentation and then one of
the versions would make it into the standard library.

> > [compiling Lisp to Python bytecode]

> This is a bizarre idea if you want to make Python run faster. It is
> not so bizarre if what you want is to have access to Python from
> Lisp/Scheme in the same sense Jython has access to Java.


Why not just use a foreign function interface?

Steve Holden 01-12-2005 11:00 PM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Paul Rubin wrote:

> michele.simionato@gmail.com writes:
>
>>2. One could proposed hygienic pattern-matching macros in Python,
>>similar to
>>Scheme syntax-rules macros. Again, it is not obvious how to
>>implement pattern-matching in Python in a non-butt-ugly way. Plus,
>>I feel hygienic macros quite limited and not worth the effort.

>
>
> It wasn't obvious how to do it in Scheme either. There was quite
> a bit of head scratching and experimental implementation before
> there was consensus.
>
>
>>3. We would add to Python the learning curve of macros and their
>>subtilities and we do not want it.

>
>
> I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of
> __metaclass__, which we already have. If it was done in a way that
> most of us would just rely on a few standard ones, that would be fine.
>

Well the necessity to understand metaclasses could in some ways be
regarded as the push for the summit, and therefore isn't something that
would trouble newbies. Given that we are having this discussion in the
context of a posited "where" clause intended to allow "multi-statement
expressions" (whatever they turn out to be) I would still argue you are
discussing the totally unnecessary.

Given that Guido is on record as saying that expressions aren't
statements because he wants those things to be separate, I don't really
see why there's this consistent pressure to reverse that decision.

>
>>4. Macros would complicate a lot Python module system.

>
>
> I don't see how, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
>
>>5. We have Guido providing a good syntax for us all, why we should be
>>fiddling with it? More seriously, if some verbosity is recognized
>>in the language (think to the "raison d'etre" of decorators, for
>>instance) I very much prefer to wait for Guido to take care of
>>that, once and for all, than having 100 different custom made
>>solutions based on macros.

>
>
> Every time some newbie asks an innocent "how do I ..." question, we
> see unbelievably horrid answers from gurus. Just check the FAQ about
> conditional expressions, etc. I just don't see Python syntax changes
> as forthcoming.
>

There's a reason for this ...
>
>>What I would be interested in is a Lisp/Scheme implementation
>>compiling to Python bytecode, but I am not aware of any project
>>in that direction.

>
>
> But that sounds like a bizarre idea. Python bytecode is just a
> CPython artifact, not part of the language. And it's not even that
> good an artifact. Good Lisp/Scheme implementations compile to native
> code that beats the pants off of CPython bytecode. It would make much
> more sense to have a Python implementation that compiles Python to
> S-expressions and then lets a high performance Lisp or Scheme system
> take care of the rest.


Which would be a worthier goal than trying to graft macros on to Python.
You responded that macros would be difficult to implement in m4 because
(in essence) of the indented structure of Python. I'm not convinced
they'd be any easier in Python, and I'm *certainly* not convinced that
their addition would improve Python's readability.

At best it would offer new paradigms for existing constructs (violating
the "there should be one obvious way to do it" zen); at worst it would
obfuscate the whole language.

If you really see the need for Python macros then a preprocessor would
surely be the best way to prove the validity of such ideas?

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119

Steve Holden 01-12-2005 11:06 PM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Paul Rubin wrote:

> michele.simionato@gmail.com writes:
>
>>>I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of
>>>__metaclass__, which we already have.

>>
>>To me, learning macros *and their subtilities* was much more difficult
>>than learning metaclasses.

>
>
> I guess I've only used Lisp macros in pretty straightforward ways,
> that weren't hard to understand. That's enough for anything I've
> needed. But we don't hear much about __metaclass__ because almost
> nobody understands it.
>

Paraphrasing Tim Peters, "if you don't definitely know that you need
metaclasses then you almost certainly don't". The primary reason for the
existence of metaclasses is as an implementation detail that allows
basic Python types to be base classes for inheritance. Python could have
hidden this mechanism, but the generally introspective nature of the
language makes it sensible to expose the mechanism for (ab)use by
knowledgeable users.
>
>>Go to comp.lang.scheme and google for "macros and module system";
>>you will get everything you want to know and much more!

>
>
> OK, I might do this.
>

Well I'd be interested to know what you find out, not being a Lisper myself.
>
>>Well, I see this as a positive fact. If a syntax is contrived (such
>>as a ternary operator, for instance) it is better *not* to have it
>>than to have one hundred custom made syntaxes. At the end, we are
>>just talking about syntax sugar here, not about lack of
>>functionality.

>
>
> I think the idea is there would be some experimentation and then one of
> the versions would make it into the standard library.
>

Erm, you'd put syntax into a library module? That would be in
__future__, I take it?
>
>>>[compiling Lisp to Python bytecode]

>>
>>This is a bizarre idea if you want to make Python run faster. It is
>>not so bizarre if what you want is to have access to Python from
>>Lisp/Scheme in the same sense Jython has access to Java.

>
>
> Why not just use a foreign function interface?


regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119

Antoon Pardon 01-13-2005 08:39 AM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Op 2005-01-12, Steve Holden schreef <steve@holdenweb.com>:
>
> Given that Guido is on record as saying that expressions aren't
> statements because he wants those things to be separate, I don't really
> see why there's this consistent pressure to reverse that decision.


Well, it seems that Guido is wrong then. The documentation clearly
states that an expression is a statement.

More specifically, everywhere you can use a statement, you can
simply use an expression according to the python syntax.

That makes the set of expressions a subset of the set of
statements and thus makes an expression a statement.

> Which would be a worthier goal than trying to graft macros on to Python.
> You responded that macros would be difficult to implement in m4 because
> (in essence) of the indented structure of Python. I'm not convinced
> they'd be any easier in Python, and I'm *certainly* not convinced that
> their addition would improve Python's readability.
>
> At best it would offer new paradigms for existing constructs (violating
> the "there should be one obvious way to do it" zen); at worst it would
> obfuscate the whole language.


That zen is already broken. Look at the number of answers one gets
if a newbee askes for a ternary operator. I think that a simple
ternary operator or macro's with an official supported macro that
implemented the ternary operator would have been far closer to
the spirit of only having one obvious way than what we have now.

--
Antoon Pardon

Fredrik Lundh 01-13-2005 10:01 AM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Antoon Pardon wrote:

> Well, it seems that Guido is wrong then. The documentation clearly
> states that an expression is a statement.


no, it says that an expression statement is a statement. if you don't
understand the difference, please *plonk* yourself.

</F>




Antoon Pardon 01-13-2005 11:22 AM

Re: python and macros (again) [Was: python3: 'where' keyword]
 
Op 2005-01-13, Fredrik Lundh schreef <fredrik@pythonware.com>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> Well, it seems that Guido is wrong then. The documentation clearly
>> states that an expression is a statement.

>
> no, it says that an expression statement is a statement. if you don't
> understand the difference, please *plonk* yourself.


And what else is an expression statement but an expression (list) used
as a statement.

--
Antoon Pardon


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.