On 5/19/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Side note: I'm actually in favor of the idea of Python adding > syntactical support for operators that have no "built-in" definition. > The use case would be for classes that define new operators that don't > correspond to the semantics of any existing operator. But that's another > thread, maybe one not worth starting :)
That could be done for a fixed number of new operators with fixed priorities. (But you'd have to pick your set of operators somehow.) It could not be done if you wanted to let users define their own combination of squiggles on the fly (the parser and lexer are too stupid). -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
