Yeah, I'm not sure if the benefits would be worth breaking such a strong Python convention. I'd rather have consistency since it appears so often in other places.
I'd vote against. --Mike On 9/17/07, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Robert, Since you do so much work on Cython, maybe you could think > > about the formal specification of the Python language and see whether > > .. > > not appearing in a string is ever valid Python. I.e., could we add > > [expr1 .. expr2] > > to the language without running into problems? > > Much like generators (K.<x>), this cannot be added to the preparser > without parsing arbitary python expressions (expr1 and expr2 in this > case). At the moment, you can make the preparser barf and it would > be a great deal of work to fix. Are we willing to do another > "correct 90% of the time" hack? If this is considered very valuable, > I suggest we hijack a Python binary operator and repurpose it. Or we > could uniformly preparse '..' to be that redefined operator; that > would be better. > > I vote against. > > Nick > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
