Sorry to double-post, but what convention are you referring to that we are breaking?
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:39 PM, Mike Hansen wrote: > 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
