Op 2005-11-22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Should some of the unicode mathematical symbols be reserved for
> literals?
> It would be greatly preferable to write \u2205 instead of the other
> proposed
> empty-set literal notation, {-}. Perhaps nullary operat
Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> It should be possible to define operators using punctuation,
> alphanumerics, or both:
>
> ]+[
> ]add[
> ]outer*[
Seems like you look for advanced source-code editors.Some ideas are
around for quite a while e.g. here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming
Joseph Garvin wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
>> excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even
>> surpass, the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl,
>> APL and INTERCAL.
s/expressiveness/u
On 23/11/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> see also:
>
> http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/archives/000666.html
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0666.html
PEP 666 should have been left open. There are a number of ideas that
come up here that should be added to it - and
Simon Brunning wrote:
>> What do you mean by unicode operators? Link?
>
> http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/03/19/jsr666_extended_operator_set
see also:
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/archives/000666.html
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0666.html
--
http://mail.python.org/
On 23/11/05, Joseph Garvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by unicode operators? Link?
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/03/19/jsr666_extended_operator_set
--
Cheers,
Simon B,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
Joseph Garvin wrote:
> >Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
> >excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even surpass,
> >the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl, APL and
> >INTERCAL.
> >
> What do you mean by unicode operators
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Each unicode character in the class 'Sm' (Symbol,
> Math) whose value is greater than 127 may be used as a user-defined operator.
EXCELLENT idea, Jeff!
> Also, to accomodate operators such as u'\N{DOUBLE INTEGRAL}', which are not
> simple unary or b
Tom Anderson wrote:
>Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
>excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even surpass,
>the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl, APL and
>INTERCAL.
>
>tom
>
>
>
What do you mean by unicode operat
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> User-defined operators could be defined like the following: ]+[
Eeek. That really doesn't look right.
Could you remind me of the reason we can't say [+]? It seems to me that an
operator can never be a legal filling for an array literal or a subscr
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:08:41PM -0800, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> Actually, that's a better syntax than the one I proposed, too:
>
> __+__
> # __add__ # this one's already in use, so not allowed
> __outer*__
Again, this means something already.
>>> __ = 3
>>> __+__
6
>>> __outer = 'x'
>>>
> if [1,2]+[3,4] != [1,2,3,4]: raise TestFailed, 'list concatenation'
> Since it contains ']+[' I assume it must now be parsed as a user-defined
> operator, but this code currently has a meaning in Python.
Yes. I agree that this is a fatal flaw in my suggestion.
Perhaps there is no syntax
> Here is a thought: Python already supports an unlimited number of
> operators, if you write them in prefix notation:
And indeed, so far Python hasn't added user-defined operators because this
has been adequate.
> Here is some syntax that I don't object to, although that's not saying
> much.
>
"Steve R. Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been studying Python recently, and I read a comment on one
> web page that said something like "the people using Python for heavy math
> really wish they could define their own operators". The specific
> example was to define an "outer prod
Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> I have been studying Python recently, and I read a comment on one
> web page that said something like "the people using Python for heavy math
> really wish they could define their own operators". The specific
> example was to define an "outer product" operator for matric
If your proposal is implemented, what does this code mean?
if [1,2]+[3,4] != [1,2,3,4]: raise TestFailed, 'list concatenation'
Since it contains ']+[' I assume it must now be parsed as a user-defined
operator, but this code currently has a meaning in Python.
(This code is the first example
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:48:05 -0800, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> User-defined operators could be defined like the following: ]+[
[snip]
> Examples of use:
>
> m = m0 ]*[ m1
> m = m0]*[m1
That looks to me like multiplying two lists. I have to look twice to see
that the operands are merely m0 and
17 matches
Mail list logo
