On 7/3/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I was inferring that motivation based on the presence of alternate, shorter spellings: in the case of operator.sequenceIncludes(), the shorter version is operator.contains(); in the case of operator.isCallable(), the shorter version is the callable() builtin. (I thought I had seen some mailing list traffic hinting that callable() would stick around after all; I guess I was wrong.) > 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(). Because these are redundant as well: operator.truth() is redundant with bool() and operator.abs() with the builtin abs(). Collin Winter _______________________________________________ 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
