> > 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"? > > Peter Funk writes: > And not to forget "and", "or" which were also infix operators from > the very beginning. So "div" is no precedent at all. OK, I stand corrected and feel suitably foolish. However I still think it's quite inconsistent to have divmod(a,b) but a div b.
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