On 3/11/07, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Collin,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:45PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
bool() and abs() aren't syntax, so I would never look in operator.
abs() is not syntax but bool() is part of every syntactic construction
that takes a truth value
Yes.
On 3/12/07, Collin Winter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/11/07, Armin Rigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Collin,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:45PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
bool() and abs() aren't syntax, so I would never look in operator.
abs() is not syntax but bool() is part
Hi Collin,
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:19:26AM -0500, Collin Winter wrote:
iter() is part of every syntactic construction that takes an iterator
argument (for, listcomps, gencomps, ...). Should it go in operator as
well?
Historically, things that have a slot go in 'operator'. So that would
Hi Collin,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:45PM -0600, Collin Winter wrote:
bool() and abs() aren't syntax, so I would never look in operator.
abs() is not syntax but bool() is part of every syntactic construction
that takes a truth value argument (if, while, and, ...)
A bientot,
Armin
[Collin Winter]
I don't suppose you've changed your mind about removing operator.truth
and operator.abs in the seven months since this discussion?
[GvR]
No, though I think that operator.truth should be renamed to operator.bool.
I like the idea that for each built-in op there's a callable in
They do, by emphasizing the relationship with special methods.
On 3/7/07, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Collin Winter]
I don't suppose you've changed your mind about removing operator.truth
and operator.abs in the seven months since this discussion?
[GvR]
No, though I think
On 3/7/07, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Collin Winter]
I don't suppose you've changed your mind about removing operator.truth
and operator.abs in the seven months since this discussion?
[GvR]
No, though I think that operator.truth should be renamed to operator.bool.
I
