[Python-ideas] Infix functions

[Mark Lawrence]

On 23/02/2014 23:14, Nicholas Cole wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, 21 February 2014, Andrew Barnert
> <abarnert at yahoo.com
> <mailto:abarnert at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     From: Chris Rebert <pyideas at rebertia.com
>     <javascript:;>>
>
>     Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 2:47 PM
>
>
>      > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andrew Barnert
>     <abarnert at yahoo.com <javascript:;>>
>      > wrote:
>      >>  While we're discussing crazy ideas inspired by a combination of a
>      > long-abandoned PEP and Haskell idioms (see the implicit lambda
>     thread),
>      > here's another: arbitrary infix operators:
>      >>
>      >>      a `foo` b == foo(a, b)
>      >
>      > Prior discussion:
>      >
>     https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2007-January/000050.html
>      >
>      > Which resulted in a new item in PEP 3099 ("Things that will Not
>     Change
>      > in Python 3000"; http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/ ):
>      >     * No more backticks.
>      >     Backticks (`) will no longer be used as shorthand for repr -- but
>      > that doesn't mean they are available for other uses. Even
>     ignoring the
>      > backwards compatibility confusion, the character itself causes too
>      > many problems (in some fonts, on some keyboards, when typesetting a
>      > book, etc).
>      >
>      >
>      > I think people using suboptimal fonts and keyboard layouts should
>     find
>      > better ones...
>
>
>     Thanks for pointing that out.
>
>     OK, some other syntax then, there's no reason it has to be identical
>     to Haskell. We can even go back to the original PEP's version:
>
>          a @foo b = foo(a, b)
>
>
> Please, no!
>
>   Everything on this list for the past few days seems to have been more
> and more compact syntax for things that may or may not have a use.
>
> I'm in favour of adding new things to the language.  I really like the
> except expressions pep.  I look at it and I think, "I might have
> imagined you could already do that, and it will make a lot of code more
> readable."  I think that is a great test for whether something should be
> added!
>
> But function any class decorators seem to have created a wave of
> suggestions for non-intuitive syntax based around funny characters and
> notations.  It is for the BDFL to say whether these are Pythonic, but I
> hope none of them turn out to be.
>
> I'm comfortable with a language that is very slightly more verbose than
> it could be. Python at version 3.4 is very readable. Please let's keep
> it that way!
>
> I'm not getting at anyone - or any particular proposal -  but there have
> been a spate of similar things!
>
> N.
>

Massive +1 from me as you match my sentiments entirely.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com