>>>>> "TW" == Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> writes:
TW> Agreed. It might be technically unambiguous, but I think it's
TW> too hard for a *human* to parse this correctly. The '>>'
TW> version might seem more C++ish and less pythonic, but it also
TW> stands out a lot more. The 'print from' statement could easily
TW> (and more consistently, IMHO ;) be written as 'print <<' (not
TW> that I like the 'print from' idea, though.)
I also played around with trying to get the grammar and parser to
recognize 'print to' and variants, and it seemed difficult and
complicated. So I'm back to -0 on 'print to' and +1 on 'print >>'.
-Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4