Obviously I'm +1 on this, but a little bit less so than at the time of
proposal, let's say +0.8...at PEP 225 time, @ matmul operator did not exist (it
was the competing PEP 211, also to address matrix multiply, that proposed
@...both were rejected at the time lol).
But now that @ exists, there would be either redundancy or lack of
orthogonality among the family of multiplication infix operators...
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
