martin@v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis): > "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams@rcn.com> writes: > > > This rubs my expectations the right way. Does it foreshadow the > > introduction of boolean operators (e.g. &, |, &&, ||)? > > I hope not. "and", "or" is boolean enough, for me. No more line noise > is needed. We certainly don't need '&&' and '||' -- we already have them, they're called 'and' and 'or'. But if booleans are to become a separate type eventually, I think that '&' and '|' should perform the standard (non-shortcircuiting) boolean algebra operations on them. In fact, that could be added now to the reference implementation in the PEP -- I don't think it would introduce any extra breakage. Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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