On Sat, Aug 04, 2018 at 02:04:01PM +0000, Dan Sommers wrote:
> 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?
Some social problems:
- allowing non-ASCII identifiers was controversial, and is still
banned for the std lib;
- according to critics of PEP 505, even ASCII operators like ?.
are virtually unreadable or unspeakably ugly and "Perlish".
If you think the uproar over PEP 572 was vicious, imagine what would
happen if we introduced new operators like ∉ ∥ ∢ ∽ ⊎ etc instead. I'm
not touching that hornet's nest with a twenty foot pole.
And some technical problems:
- keyboard support for entering the bulk of Unicode characters is
non-existent or poor;
- without keyboard support, editor support for entering Unicode
characters is as best clunky, requiring the memorization of
obscure names, hex codes, or a GUI palette;
- and font support for the more exotic code points, including most
mathematical operators, is generally rubbish.
It may be that these technical problems will *never* be solved. But let
other languages, like Julia, blaze this trail.
[...]
> > 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). :-/
Indeed.
Technically, we don't need *any* operators at all, possibly aside from
those that do argument short-circuiting.
But for many purposes, we much prefer infix notation to prefix
function notation. Which would you rather read and write?
or(x, 1)
x or 1
[...]
> And now mental gymnastics to jump from ~foo to ___foo___ or ___rfoo___.
Just as we do "mental gymnastics" to jump from existing operators like +
to __add__ or __radd__.
If you don't like operator overloading *at all*, that ship has
already sailed.
> 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___.
*shrug*
I don't think it is, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.
> 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
Infix operators delegate to a pair of methods. What would you call
the second one? ~rfoo will clash with operator rfoo.
We already have a convention that operators delegate to dunder methods,
and I see no reason to make changes to that convention. It's a *good*
convention.
The smaller the number of changes needed for a proposal, the better its
chances of being accepted. My suggestion requires:
- one new piece of syntax, ~op or equivalent, as a binary operator;
- (possibly) one slight extension to an existing naming convention;
- (possibly) one new byte-code;
- no new keywords, no new syntax for methods, no new built-in types,
no changes to the execution model of the language, and no changes
to the characters allowed in Python code.
If you want to make a counter-proposal that is more extensive, be my
guest :-)
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
