PEP 276 (was Re: Status of PEP's?)

[Carel Fellinger]

Emile van Sebille <emile at fenx.com> wrote:
> "Carel Fellinger"
...
>> I noted the smiley, but just in case someone might think you have a
>> point: what would be the benefit of that?

> Syntactic consistency with slice notation:
>     5 :: [:5] as-3 :: [-3:]

Bummers, forgot about that.

> or maybe it should be:   ;-)
>     5 :: [:5] like -3 :: [:-3]

alternatives, make things look even worse:)


>> The tutorial could introduce it like:
>>
>>    In python integers are objects too. And objects know how to do
>>    things, e.g. integer objects know how to add and just recently
>>    they learned how to count.  Positive integers count from zero
>>    upto but not including the number itself, whereas negative
>>    integers count from -1 downto and including the number itself.

> My my... I think you've converted... ;-)

No no, I only think I understand it now:]  I'm still not sure I like
it, but on different grounds this time.


> Couldn't we overload the '-' to reverse by itself?  ;-)
>         >>> print " ".join([x for x in -s])

:)

> My point, repeated a few times here <wink>, is that while I have no
... nice fussy pointing rambling snipped...
> those who don't like iter(int), don't use it, or at least, .  ;-) use it
> as often as you use '>>'.

> Bonus-points-for-each-point-found-here-ly y'rs,

I just pick my points then:)

low learning curve
high `rememberability'  (I don't want to look things up)
One prefered way of doing it
easy on the eyes        (it should be extremely raedable)

-- 
groetjes, carel