> Charles G Waldman writes: > > I think that making "div" an infix operator would be setting a > > horrible precedent. Currently, all infix operators "look like" > > operators, i.e. they are non-alphabetic characters, and things that > > look like words are either functions or reserved words. Fred L. Drake, Jr.: > Like "is", "in", "is not", and "not in"? And not to forget "and", "or" which were also infix operators from the very beginning. So "div" is no precedent at all. IMHO the term "horrible" applies to operator symbols composed out of non-alphabetic characters, where the meaning of these operators is hard to guess. counter-example: Using "><" as a vector cross product operator might still make some sense. But what would be the meaning of all those other arbitrary combinations like ".+", ".%", ".*", "//", "@.", "~*" or what else has been proposed to extend Python in the numeric area? As long as the meaning of such an operator isn't obvious from basic math knowledge, I clearly prefer keyword operators. Regards, Peter -- Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, D-27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Fax:+49 4222950260 office: +49 421 20419-0 (ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Str.8, D-28359 Bremen)
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