On 7/3/06, Michael Urman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/3/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/3/06, Collin Winter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stupid question: why? What's the better spelling of operator.add? > > > > + > > I reject your slippery slope argument that we'd have to remove > operator.add. Not that we'd be able to tell, but + is not callable.
It turns out I was misled by Collin's claim that the PEP wants isCallable and sequenceIncludes removed "because there are better, more obvious ways to spell these things." He must have made up the motivation, as the PEP doesn't give any (and the footnote [17] is particularly unhelpful -- who came up with the idea of having 7 different places in the PEP link to 5 different parts of the manual via the same footnote?). I believe that the real reasons are different in each case: - operator.sequenceIncludes() is redundant with operator.contains - operator.isCallable() corresponds to the callable() built-in and the PEP also wants to remove callable(). I don't see how this generalizes to operator.truth() or operator.abs(). The key thing to understand about the operator module is that its methods correpond to the C-level APIs. As the C-level API changes we can expect more changes to the operator module. -- --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
