Fernando Perez wrote: > For something as big as this, they would > definitely want to work off a real pep.
What might be interesting, for those who want to experiment with this syntax, is to take my Python parser for Python (python4ply - http://www.dalkescientific.com/Python/python4ply.html ) and add support for the proposed syntax. It's only a grammar change and it shouldn't be that hard to change the syntax tree so that a proposed "~+" or whatever gets converted to the right method call. Python4ply generates PVM byte code, so the end result is code that works with the existing Python. You could even be adventurous and map things like a \power b into binary operators, perhaps named "__op_power__" It's loads of fun to tweak the grammar. My tutorial even walks through how to add Perl-like syntax for regex creation and match operator, to allow for line in open("python_yacc.py"): if line =~ m/def (?P<name>\w+) *(?P<args>\(.*\)) *:/: print repr($1), repr($args) :) >> LR: It would be great to use unicode math operators. Though if you want to experiment with this .. I make neither guarantees nor warrantees about Unicode support in what I did. I don't even support the encoding hint that Python code can have. Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
