On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 09:18:40PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> While it's tempting, it does create an awkward distinction.
>
> f(1, 2, 3) # look up f, call it with parameters
> f[1, 2, 3] # look up f, subscript it with paramters
> f{1, 2, 3} # construct a frozenset
You forgot
f"1, 2, {x+1}" # eval some code and construct a string
Not to mention:
r(1, 2, 3) # look up r, call it with parameters
r[1, 2, 3] # look up r, subscript it
r"1, 2, 3" # a string literal
> And that means it's going to be a bug magnet.
I don't think that f{} will be any more of a bug magnet than f"" and r""
already are.
> Are we able to instead make a sort of vector literal?
>
> <1, 2, 3>
Back in the days when Python's parser was LL(1), that wasn't possible.
Now that it uses a PEG parser, maybe it is, but is it desirable?
Reading this makes my eyes bleed:
>>> <1, 2, 3> < <1, 2, 3, 4>
True
> Unfortunately there aren't many symbols available, and Python's kinda
> locked into a habit of using just one at each end (rather than, say,
> (<1, 2, 3>) or something), so choices are quite limited.
Triple quoted strings say hello :-)
{{1, 2, 3}} would work, since that's currently a runtime error. But I
prefer the f{} syntax.
--
Steve
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7RNS6HALAPTTFAOFCTTUNUNFRYU6EYV3/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
