On 6/30/2017 9:24 AM, Oleg Broytman wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:10:08PM +0200, "Sven R. Kunze"
wrote:
'+' is the perfect concat operator. I love Python for this feature.
+1 from me
and me. I think extending it to chain iterators is an intriguing idea.
It would not be the first
On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Soni L. wrote:
> || is the mathematical notation for concatenation. Which, just so happens to
> be available in Python, even if it might be confused with short-circuiting
> `or`.
Also used in REXX. But the short-circuiting 'or' is not overridable.
You'd have to us
On 2017-06-30 09:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:51:26PM +0100, Jamie Willis wrote:
Just as an aside, if a concatenation operator *was* included, a suitable
operator would be "++",
As mentioned earlier in this thread, that is not possible in Python as
syntactically `
> On Jun 30, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:51:26PM +0100, Jamie Willis wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively
>> "<>" is an alternative, being the monoidal append operator in Haskell,
>> which retains a certain similarly.
>
> "<>" is familiar to many people as "n
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:10:08PM +0200, "Sven R. Kunze"
wrote:
> '+' is the perfect concat operator. I love Python for this feature.
+1 from me
> Regards,
> Sven
Oleg.
--
Oleg Broytmanhttp://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name
Programmers don't die, they j
On 30.06.2017 13:51, Jamie Willis wrote:
Just as an aside, if a concatenation operator *was* included, a
suitable operator would be "++", this is the concatenation operator in
languages like Haskell (for strings) and the majority of Scala cases.
Alternatively "<>" is an alternative, being the m
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:51:26PM +0100, Jamie Willis wrote:
> Just as an aside, if a concatenation operator *was* included, a suitable
> operator would be "++",
As mentioned earlier in this thread, that is not possible in Python as
syntactically `x ++ y` would be parsed as `x + (+y)` (the plu
Just as an aside, if a concatenation operator *was* included, a suitable
operator would be "++", this is the concatenation operator in languages
like Haskell (for strings) and the majority of Scala cases. Alternatively
"<>" is an alternative, being the monoidal append operator in Haskell,
which ret
2017-06-30 1:33 GMT+02:00 Soni L. :
> Step 3. add decimal concatenation operator for numbers: 2 cat 3 == 23, 22
> cat 33 = 2233, etc. if you need bitwise concatenation, you're already in
> bitwise "hack" land so do it yourself. (no idea why bitwise is considered
> hacky as I use it all the time, bu
> On 30 Jun 2017, at 03:14, Soni L. wrote:
>
> This isn't a *major* backwards incompatibility. Unlike with unicode/strings,
> a dumb static analysis program can trivially replace + with the concatenation
> operator, whatever that may be. Technically, nothing forces us to remove +
> from strin
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:14:46PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> astring cat alist is undefined for string (since strings are very
> specific about types), so it would return a list.
>
> alist cat atuple would return a list, because the list comes first.
This would be strongly unacceptable to me.
If
On 30 June 2017 at 09:33, Soni L. wrote:
> Step 4. make it into python 4, since it breaks backwards compatibility.
If a Python 4.0 ever happens, it will abide by the usual feature
release compatibility restrictions (i.e. anything that it drops will
have gone through programmatic deprecation in pr
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Soni L. wrote:
> This isn't a *major* backwards incompatibility. Unlike with unicode/strings,
> a dumb static analysis program can trivially replace + with the
> concatenation operator, whatever that may be. Technically, nothing forces us
> to remove + from string
On 2017-06-29 09:48 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:33:12PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
Step 1. get rid of + for strings, lists, etc. (string/list concatenation
is not addition)
I agree that using + for concatenation is sub-optimal, & is a better
choice, but we're stuck with
I feel like this would literally break the world for almost no real
benefit...
--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura, ryo (supercell/EGOIST), Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone
elsehttp://refi64.com
On Jun 29, 2017 at 6:33 PM, > wrote:
Step 1. get rid of + for strings, lists, etc. (string/list concatenation
i
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:33:12PM -0300, Soni L. wrote:
> Step 1. get rid of + for strings, lists, etc. (string/list concatenation
> is not addition)
I agree that using + for concatenation is sub-optimal, & is a better
choice, but we're stuck with it. And honestly it's not *that* big a deal
t
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Soni L. wrote:
> Step 1. get rid of + for strings, lists, etc. (string/list concatenation is
> not addition)
>
> Step 2. add concatenation operator for strings, lists, and basically
> anything that can be iterated. effectively an overloadable itertools.chain.
> (li
17 matches
Mail list logo
