Tim Peters wrote: > > ... > > I'm not sure how Python's parser manages to get that straight! In > Precodese, it would be (except that $(x) is presumably str(x) rather than > repr(x)): > > print $"$($(1+2)+$(3+4))" > > which at least makes the grouping clear. I'm all for it. Egad. It's enough to make me think twice about my own proposal. :) Nevertheless, I agree it's clearer than your tick-example which almost made me run for my plotted plant. As happy as I am to have it called Prescod-ese, I admit to influence from some languages that (otherwise) suck. :) credit-where-due 'ly yrs -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus New from Computer Associates: "Software that can 'think', sold by marketers who choose not to."
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