[Stephen J. Turnbull[
>> Neologisms are usually written in the other order:
>> "dead on arrival (DOA, for short)." ;-)
[Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>]
> Maybe we can make use of that?
>
> if (x - x_base) (diff) and gcd(diff, n) (g) > 1:
>
> That doesn't work, because the (...) look like function
> calls. But what if we used a different set of bracketing
> characters:
>
> if (x - x_base) {diff} and gcd(diff, n) {g} > 1:
>
> I think that's unambiguous, because you can't currently
> put {...} straight after an expression.
As Guido noted more than once when this was still on python-ideas,
this isn't a "a puzzle" to be solved by any technical tricks
conceivable. He's not going to accept anything in his language that
isn't at least plausibly evident. There's a long & distinguished
history of other languages using ":=" for binding, which is why that
one gained traction before this moved to python-dev.
> To make it look even more like a neologism definition,
> we could require the bound names to be all-uppercase. :-)
>
> if (x - x_base) {DIFF} and gcd(DIFF, n) {G} > 1:
> return G
Yes - now you're on the right track ;-)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
