On 2/12/07, Maric Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 13 février 2007 01:36, Barry Warsaw a écrit:
> > On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:32 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > > Oh, now I am definitely in favor of .[]! I read it in gmail in FireFox
> > > which uses a small variable-pitch font whose dot is a single pixel.
> > > The .() example was hard to find; the .[] jumped out immediately.
> > > (When do you ever see self[anything]?)
> >
> > Raymond's -> suggestion was nice.
> >
> I really dislikes the .[ or .( or .{ operators.
> Just on my mail editor the two expressions
>
> a.[b]
>
> and
>
> a,[b]
>
> are quite hard to differentiate while completely unrelated.
Yeah, so are 1.2 and 1,2. This is why the style guide (PEP 8) insists
on a space after a comma but not after a period.
> Why did the brace syntax wasn't even discussed ? Seems clean to me.
Because they are arbitrary -- if x{y} or x.{y} would be acceptable,
why not x.<y> or x.|y| or x./y/? Or indeed why not [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Not that
I'm
in favor of that. :-)
That x.[y] and x.(y) resemble x[y] and x(y) is an *advantage* of the
proposed new notation, not a disadvantage; the new operator is
semantically closer to x[y] than to x(y) so x.[y] makes sense.
> obj{expr} can be read as "given obj as a namespace, retrieve the name
> resulting by expr in obj and enclosing namespaces (supers)".
Yeah, it can just as well be read as "call obj with 2**expr as
argument". Also, your reference to enclosing namespaces and supers is
misplaced -- this should map to the existing __getattr__ operation,
which can have many different semantics depending on the type of obj.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
