tony summerfelt wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:01:22 +0900, you wrote:
>
>
> >> 'there's only ONE way to do it'
> >
> >No! The correct statement is:
> >
> >'There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do
it.'
>
> what can i say:
>
> > There's Only One Way To Do It.
>
> > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
>
> from:
>
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-announce-list/2000-September/000500.html
>
>
> so i guess my question is: who's right with the statement you or the
> author of python :)

good point, but what about python itself? :)


16:20:18-ferrari@herrober:~$ python
Python 2.3.3 (#1, May 18 2004, 19:29:58)
[GCC 3.3.2 20031218 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.2-r5, propolice-3.3-7)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
>>>

putting this into the python implementation seems more official to me
than a personal signature.