On 11/22/06, Calvin Spealman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/22/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not sure I like this better. My spelling of "operator::XXX" is > > "__XXX__" and I like that just fine -- no new syntax needed. > > Well, that might be a spelling of `operator::XXX` but what about other > use cases like `third_party_interface_system::adapt` or > `anything_at_all::XXX`? Thats what I mean with not being too limiting > and solving the problem in a way that opens up solutions to other > problems. I get the opposition to it, but it seems reasonable, > nonetheless.
How was I to generalize from a single example what you meant? I thought you were using 'operator' as a fixed keyword like it is in C++, and I was wondering what you meant by the double colon. I still believe it is easy enough to solve this using a naming convention. -- --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
