On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 14:05, Avi Gross via Python-list
<python-list@python.org> wrote:
> To answer something Chris said and was also mentioned here, I do not consider
> language design to be easy let alone implementing it. Not at all. BUT I think
> some changes can be straightforward. Having a symbol like a curly brace mean
> three new things may be tough to implement. Allowing a new symbol in an
> expanded set of characters seems more straightforward.
>
> Consider an arrow symbol → pointing to the right and another pointing the
> other way. Could we add the symbol to the language as a single character,
> albeit implemented using multiple bytes? If my editor let me insert the darn
> thing, it might then be a reasonable use for some construct in the language
> unique and new. Maybe the language would use the notation to hold objects
> holding a set and not confuse the notations for sets and dictionaries as
> Python ended up doing. (Yes, I know it is NOT confusing in some ways as one
> holds key:value pairs and the other just value, but making an empty set now
> requires the notation of set() while an empty dictionary is {} right?
>
> So how hard is it for a newly designed language to recognize any use of one
> arrow and expect everything up to the next arrow (pointing back) to be the
> contents of a set? It sounds a tad easier than now when Python interpreters
> have to pause when they see an open bracket and read what follows to see if
> everything beyond uses dictionary notation before it decides.
>
> But NO, I am not volunteering to do any of that.
That is exactly why (well, one of the reasons why) I recommended going
the whole way and designing a language in full. You will know exactly
how hard it actually is. In fact, "pause when they see an open
bracket" is the least of your worries :)
ChrisA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
