Hi Bearophile,
Nah, you don't want to change 'em. I can remember 'em just fine :-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Alex Martelli wrote:
>>> I still vaguely hope that in 3.0, where backwards incompatibilities
>>> can be introduced, Python may shed some rarely used operators such
>>> as
>>> these (for all types, of course).
>>
>> I hope there is no serious plan to drop them. There is nothing wrong
>> in having s
Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I still vaguely hope that in 3.0, where backwards incompatibilities
> > can be introduced, Python may shed some rarely used operators such as
> > these (for all types, of course).
>
> I hope there is no ser
Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still vaguely hope that in 3.0, where backwards incompatibilities
> can be introduced, Python may shed some rarely used operators such as
> these (for all types, of course).
I hope there is no serious plan to drop them. There is nothing wrong in havin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sometimes I suggest to add things to the language (like adding some set
> methods to dicts), but I've seen that I tend to forget the meaning of
> six set/frozenset operators:
>
> s & t s &= t
> s | t s |= t
> s ^ t s ^= t
>
> My suggestion is to remove them, and keep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sometimes I suggest to add things to the language (like adding some set
> methods to dicts), but I've seen that I tend to forget the meaning of
> six set/frozenset operators:
>
> s & t s &= t
> s | t s |= t
> s ^ t s ^= t
>
> My suggestion is to remove them, and k
Sometimes I suggest to add things to the language (like adding some set
methods to dicts), but I've seen that I tend to forget the meaning of
six set/frozenset operators:
s & t s &= t
s | t s |= t
s ^ t s ^= t
My suggestion is to remove them, and keep them only as explicit
non-operator version
