On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Tim Peters wrote:
>[Guido]
>> Of all the syntactic changes proposed on the newsgroup, by my estimate
>> less than 0.1% ever makes it into the language.
>
>Heh: that shows how little you still read the newsgroup <0.9 wink>. Note
>that PEP 255 recorded all of these variants suggested for "yield":
>
> return 3 and continue
> return and continue 3
> return generating 3
> continue return 3
> return >> , 3
> from generator return 3
> return >> 3
> return << 3
> >> 3
> << 3
>
>I suppose I should add
>
> * 3
'*' looks right to be yield: like a hole after something got thru paper
;-)
I do not remember, but probably I also proposed:
< 3
>to the list now.
Or, yes, and next step is to use '?' in place of 'print' ;-)
from __future__ import parrot
# must allow for such things:
= myfun(x, y, z):
? "how are you?"
S = 0
4 i <- x..y,z:
S += i
** S
= mygen(x):
4 k <- 1..x:
* k
? myfun(1, 3, 5)
? mygen(20)
Another approach is lobby Python reserved words into Unicode.
(Like APL did, IIRC). Then they could be represented by nice
pictograms.
I think, yhis thread is not constructive any more, as 90%
of voices were AGAINST.
Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
--
_/ Russia _/ Karelia _/ Petrozavodsk _/ rnd@onego.ru _/
_/ Monday, August 06, 2001 _/ Powered by Linux RedHat 6.2 _/
_/ "A pessimist is never disappointed." _/
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