> From: Tim Peters [mailto:tim.one@comcast.net]
>
> [Delaney, Timothy]
> > ...
> > Actually, following through my thought processes, ``x:y`` is only
> > legal in the context of a sequence slice i.e. inside ``[]``.
>
> Dicts are worse. {1:2:3} would be hopelessly ambiguous.
{(1:2):3}
{1:(2:3)}
I'm trying to work out a way to get more parentheses in there without
surrounding the actual digits ;)
But it's another overloading that I missed ...
As I said, it's really tempting. The concept is very elegant. Unfortunately,
I don't think it's practical :( Too many cases where it would be necessary
to disambiguate - even having one exception is probably too many.
Do we have double-colons yet?
a::b (damn - I've forgotten what that means mathematically ... equivalent?)
Looks too much like C++ anyway ;)
Tim Delaney
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