[alphaalpha101]

If you want to be literal about it then sure, it just means read-eval-print loop. But I think that's akin to saying that a functional programming language is a language that has functions in it.

EDIT: To be clear, what I'm saying is that when people say 'I really love using Common Lisp because it has a REPL' they aren't saying 'I really love using Common Lisp because it has a prompt I can write raw strings of code into that executes that code and has no other features'. That's not a lovable feature.

People love Lisp REPLs because there's much more to them than that. In Lisp, the REPL is more like GDB than it is like Python's REPL.

Not really sure why the reaction to my comments here is so viscerally negative. Very few terms that we use are wholly literal. REPL isn't literal either.

[rockostrich]

Sorry if my comment with the definition of REPL seemed "viscerally negative". I understand that a good REPL has more features that just the bare bones, but you said that programs that read an input, evaluated it, and then printed the result aren't REPLs. You should've said that they aren't good or useful REPLs.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying notepad isn't a text editor because you can't edit multiple lines at once or highlight syntax. Those are features that good text editors have, but it does not mean notepad is not a text editor.

[alphaalpha101]

They aren't really REPLs.

>Your argument is the equivalent of saying notepad isn't a text editor because you can't edit multiple lines at once or highlight syntax.

No it's the equivalent of saying that not even programme that can possibly, technically edit a text file is a text editor.

Python's shell thing is not a REPL.