On 4 June 2018 at 11:59, Pål Grønås Drange <paal.dra...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing that could solve both this proposal and the aforementioned > SI-proposition by Ken Kundert, could be supporting user-defined > literals. Suppose that __litXXX___ would make XXX a literal one could > use as a suffix for numbers and strings (and lists, dicts, sets?). > > A user-defined literal could be defined as __lit<insert literal>__, > though I don't know how to import it.
The killer would be putting together a full proposal, though. Unless you mean something very different from the norm when you say "literal", literals are evaluated very early in the parsing process, long before user-defined functions are accessible. If what you actually mean is a specialised function calling syntax (where NNN_suf is parsed as the a "literal call" of "suf" with the number NNN as an argument, so it translates to a call to (something like) __lit_suf__(NNN) at runtime, then that's probably possible, but it's extremely unclear why that function-call syntax has any significant advantage over the standard syntax suf(NNN). "readability" is notoriously difficult to argue, and "allows construction of domain-specific languages" is pretty much an anti-goal in Python. So what's left to justify this? Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/