On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM, John Ladasky <lada...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> One of my questions was: would there be any merit to having the Python >> "pass" token itself defined exactly as _pass() is defined above? > > No, there wouldn't. The Python 'pass' statement is a special statement > that indicates a lack of anything to execute; a dummy function call > isn't this. What I would kinda like to see, though, is function > versions of many things. Your basic operators exist in the 'operator' > module, but the syntax is rather clunky; for comparison, Pike has > beautifully simple (if a little cryptic) syntax: back-tick followed by > the operator itself, very similar to the way C++ does operator > overloading. > > In Python 2, back-tick has a special meaning. In Python 3, that > meaning is removed. Is the character now available for this > "function-version" syntax?
Negative. I know this from personal experience. Things that will Not Change in Python 3000 (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/ ): "No more backticks." Cheers, Chris R. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
