On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:51:51 +0000, Lie Ryan wrote: > >> Chris Rebert wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Lawrence >>> D'Oliveiro<l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >>>> In message <mailman.2674.1246866966.8015.python-l...@python.org>, Tim >>>> Golden wrote: >>>> >>>>> The difficulty here is knowing where to put such a warning. You >>>>> obviously can't put it against the "++" operator as such because... >>>>> there isn't one. >>>> This bug is an epiphenomenon. :) >>> >>> Well, like I suggested, it /could/ be made an operator (or rather, a >>> lexer token) which just causes a compile/parse error. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Chris >> >> There are edge cases (level: very rare) where you legitimately want to >> actually do that, e.g.: > > Not so rare. Decimal uses unary plus. Don't assume +x is a no-op. > > > Help on method __pos__ in module decimal: > > __pos__(self, context=None) unbound decimal.Decimal method > Returns a copy, unless it is a sNaN. > > Rounds the number (if more then precision digits)
Well, yes, but when would you apply it twice in a row? (Not that I strongly support the prohibition idea, just thought it should be brought up) Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
