Paul Prescod wrote: > > "M.-A. Lemburg" wrote: > > > >.. > > > > Why ? ++x can be put to some real use: I have a counter > > type which actually uses ++x to increment the counter. > > Do you implement a matching "x++"? What's wrong with x.inc()? x++ does not work. x.inc() would work too, but it involves a method lookup and function call, which "++x" doesn't. > > Note that the interpreter sees ++x as +(+x), that is the "+" is > > interpreted as unary + -- perfectly legal Python if you ask me. > > Legal but perverse. Your users will expect +++x and x++ to be equally > valid and have their C semantics. Plus you are using a Python construct > that means one thing to mean something totally different just because it > means the totally different thing in other languages. In Python that > syntax would usually be side-effect free (and useless). Well, it is not necessarily side-effect free, since Python does call a method slot on the underlying object and that slot can change of course change state. Nevermind, the syntax is only an experiment -- I just wanted to point out that "++x" is legal in Python (you can place any number of + before the object, BTW). Some examples: >>> +++++1 1 >>> ------2 2 >>> --2 2 >>> -2 -2 >>> ---2 -2 >>> ----2 2 -- Marc-Andre Lemburg CEO eGenix.com Software GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ Consulting & Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Python Software: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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