On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> I don't know if it's a good idea to make this valid Sage syntax, >> though. >> I'm on the fence, but leaning towards not favoring it just because >> of the added complexity and the departure from true Python, and the >> python version isn't all that bad. >> > Note that -> gets a meaning in Python 3, to annotate the result of a > function: > > def foo(a: int) -> float: > ... > > I don't think this is a technical problem as one can rely on the > statement to start with "def", but at least -> already means > something.
That's a good point. In general, I'm against adding stuff to the preparser unless there's a very strong case for departing from what Python already offers. - Robert -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
