Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
> Nick Coghlan write:
>
>> Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>>> Dear Raymond,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your email.
>>>
>>>> I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
>>>> that were held for PEP 225:
>>>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
>>>>
>>>> That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
>>>> bring it back to life.
>>> This is a much better PEP than the one I had found, and would solve
>>> all of the numpy problems. The PEP is very well thought-out.
>> A very interesting read! I wouldn't support some of the more exotic
>> elements tacked on to the end (particularly the replacement of the now
>> thoroughly entrenched bitwise operators), but the basic idea of
>> providing ~op variants of several operators seems fairly sound. I'd be
>> somewhat inclined to add ~not, ~and and ~or to the list even though
>> that would pretty much force the semantics to be elementwise for the ~
>> variants (since the standard not, and and or are always objectwise and
>> without PEP 335 there's no way for an object to change that).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nick.
>
> I agree: adding ~op will be very interesting.
As interesting as I may have found it though, further discussion of the
prospect of resurrecting it for consideration in the 2.7/3.1 timeframe
should really take place on python-ideas.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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