On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 9:46 AM Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > Yanghao Hua wrote: > > If I use python to do > > something and I have to type more chars it doesn't make sense for me. > > If you shorten it to "n" you get > > x.n = 4 > > which is exactly the same number of characters as your "<==" proposal: > > x <== 4 > > Getting a bit more creative, you could use the little-known "._=" > operator that already exists in Python. :-) > > x ._= 4
Indeed this is clever and less chars, but not as readable as x.next = 4 nor x <== 4, right? and I think one thing python is very good at is about readability. Sorry about my paranoia ... I get the idea that the python community are very cautious and not willing to just add a new operator which I fully understood (and I understood it is difficult for the existing python community to see the value), for me I believe it is worth doing and I will make a PEP even though it is going nowhere, as well as a reference implementation to show how it can simplify things in a dozen of cases: easier descriptor like feature where the object can be instantiated anywhere, constructing pipe-lined operations like drawing, separation of instantiation and use, and of course a complete HDL design (as well as a simulator) in python with this syntax. And I think I will settle on the "<==" and "==>" operator, it is really intuitive and I liked it. I just hope this two will not be taken for other purposes in python in the future ... :) Next time someone proposed for using this two operator please you guys help to reject it ;-) _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
