On 21 December 2011 19:00, Joshua Landau <joshua.landau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 December 2011 18:57, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Joshua Landau >> <joshua.landau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > NOW (the PEP): >> > item = foreignfunc1~(item) >> > item = foreignfunc2~(item) >> > item = foreignfunc3~(item) >> >> Just a note: PEP 225 does not actually include this syntax for >> arbitrary function calls. It only proposes to augment the arithmetic >> and assignment operators. >> > > Not quite. They never seem to have come to an agreement (the whole thing > is deferred) but they do touch upon "~f(x)": > > > 5. Using ~ as generic elementwise meta-character to replace map > > ~f(a, b) # map(f, a, b) > ~~f(a, b) # map(lambda *x:map(f, *x), a, b) > > More generally, > > def ~f(*x): return map(f, *x) > def ~~f(*x): return map(~f, *x) > ... > > I used "f~(x)" because it's not ambiguous with the current binary not > operator. > > Apologies for the double post but I think it's worth mentioning that I did make up the "list~.method" syntax.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
