A.T.Hofkamp wrote:
> On 2008-02-14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the standard library module "operator", it would be nice to have a
>> dictionary
>> mapping operators strings with their respective functions. Something like:
>>
>> {
>> '+': add,
>> '-': sub,
>> 'in': contains,
>> 'and': and_,
>> 'or': or_,
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Does such a dictionary already exist? Is it really a good and useful idea?
>>
>
> How would you handle changes in operator syntax?
> - I have 'add' instead of '+'
> - I have U+2208 instead of 'in'
>
Originally I meant only the Python syntax which shouldn't change that
much. For some operators (arith, comparison) the toy language had the
same syntax as Python.
Btw, U+2208 would be a wonderful token... if only it was on standard
keyboards.
> I don't think this is generally applicable.
>
Thinking about it, I think it is not really applicable. Mainly because
my examples were exclusively binary operators. What would be for unary
operators? Or enclosing operators (getitem)?
> Why don't you attach the function to the +/-/in/... token instead? Then you
> don't need the above table at all.
>
Could be. But I prefer settling the semantic parts the furthest possible
from the lexer. Not that I have strong arguments for that, it's religious.
Anyway, thanks for answering,
RB
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
