> On the contrary, it is a major point.
Sorry, but im affraid it is up to ME to decide which point I feel are
important. No, this is a minor point to me, and one that has been
admirably put to rest by pointing out that spelling out the name of the
symbol in google directly leads you to the inf
On the contrary, it is a major point. You want us to change the language
so you can program by Google. Sorry, aint't gonna happen.
On the contrary; I believe I get to decide which points I consider
important. This one, I do not. Sorry for putting it in the first paragraph.
--
http://mail.pyt
> No more, or less, explicit than the difference between "==" and "is".
== may be taken to mean identity comparison; 'equals' can only mean one
thing. Of course 'formally' these symbols are well defined, but so is
brainf*ck
Modulo is hardly an obscure operation. "What's the remainder...?" i
The above examples are seldom needed in Python because we have one
general method to repeatedly split a sequence into head and tail.
it = iter(iterable) # 'it' now represents the sequenced iterable
head = next(it) # 'it' now represents the tail after removing the head
In other words, ne
There are other means of finding information than Google. Really.
This is really only a very minor point in my argument, so I dont want to
put the focus on this.
But really, no.
Googling 'myprogramminglanguage conceptimtryingtofigureout' is my first,
second and third line of defence. Yes,
No more so than any other form of punctuation. Plus and minus + - may be
so common that just about everyone knows it, but how about | == @ % and
even . (dot)? None of these things will be obvious to newbies who have
never programmed before. Oh well.
Some things you just have to learn.
Y
As for syntax; what about coopting/integrating with the function
annotation syntax?
so:
def func(args: list, kwargs: attrdict)
and correspondingly in the function call?
a, b:tuple = someiterable?
I guess a rule that interprets every function argument annotated as a
subclass of list or dict a
Yes, that's just a strict keywordification of the * and ** symbols.
The same argument could be made for eliminating the standard algebraic
+ operator and replacing it with a keyword "__add__". I don't think
that's worthwhile.
Well, its not quite the same in the sense that algebraic operator
Throwing an idea for a PEP out there:
It strikes me that the def func(*args, **kwargs) syntax is rather
unpytonic. It certainly did not have that 'for line in file' pythonic
obviousness for me as a beginner. Plus, asterikses are impossible to
google for, so finding out what exactly they do mor
