> A conventional spelling for universal smallest and largest objects would > allow for a very clean and clear solution. I'm reminded that we introduced > "print >> f" partly because most people made mistakes in details when trying > to temporarily rebind sys.stdout "by hand". Complex search loops are > brittle in the details too. So I'll let Barry propose that a bare ">>" mean > "biggest" and a bare "<<" mean "smallest" <wink>. > >>>> << < >> > True Well, then we should add "==" and "<>" also. I'm sure disambiguities in the grammar can be resolved somehow ;-) >>> == == == True >>> <> <> <> False Thomas
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