On Sat, 04 Aug 2018 23:13:34 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> There are certainly advantages to using binary operators over named
> functions, and a shortage of good, ASCII punctuation suitable for new
> operators.
Hold that thoght.
Then again, why is it 2018 (or 5778?) and we're still stuck with ASCII?
Doesn't Unicode define a metric boatload of mathematical symbols? If
Pythong allows Unicode names,¹ why not Unicode operators?
¹ No, I'm not going to call them variables. :-)
> I don't think much of your names bOR etc.
>
> I think that before adding more ad hoc binary operators, we ought to
> consider the possibility of custom operators [...]
>
> a ~foo b
Great. Yet another way to spell a.foo(b). Or foo(a, b). :-/
> Although possibly we might choose another pseudo-namespace, to avoid
> custom operators clashing with dunders. Trunders perhaps? (Triple
> underscores?)
>
> Under this scheme, your operators would become:
>
> ~or
> ~and
> ~xor
>
> and call trunders ___or___ etc.
And now mental gymnastics to jump from ~foo to ___foo___ or ___rfoo___.
If it's too hard to tell = from == (see endless threads on this mailing
list for proof), then it's also too hard to tell __xor__ from ___xor___.
If I want to say
a ~foo b
then why can't I also say
class A:
def ~foo(self, b):
pass # do something more useful here
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
