Other notes

[Mike Meyer]

Jp Calderone <exarkun at divmod.com> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:42:00 -0600, Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:
>>bearophileHUGS at lycos.com writes:
>> 
>> > @infix
>> > def interval(x, y): return range(x, y+1) # 2 parameters needed
>> >
>> > This may allow:
>> > assert 5 interval 9 == interval(5,9)
>> 
>> I don't like the idea of turning words into operators. I'd much rather
>> see something like:
>
>   Really?  I like "not", "and", "or", "is", and "in".  It would not be nice 
> if they were replaced with punctuation.

They can't be turned into operators - they already are.

>   This aside, not even Python 3.0 will be flexible enough to let you define
> an infix decorator.  The language developers are strongly against supporting 
> macros, which is what an infix decorator would amount to.

Could you please explain how allowing new infix operators amount to
supporting macros?

>   Now, they might be convinced to add a new syntax that makes a function 
> into an infix operator.  Perhaps something like this:
>
>     def &(..)(x, y):
>         return range(x, y + 1)

And while you're at it, explain how this method of defining new infix
operators differs from using decorators in such a way that it doesn't
amount to supporting macros.

       <mike

-- 
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.