On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:42 PM Anders Hovmöller <bo...@killingar.net> wrote: > > > On 17 Oct 2019, at 13:26, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Equally subjective, of course, but I prefer to be able to use > > operators. There's a good reason that we use mathematical symbols for > > non-numeric data types already (adding tuples together, multiplying a > > list by an integer, etc), and it definitely makes code easier to read. > > The multiply a list/string thing is a big mistake imo. You almost never use > it so the cost of not having it is almost nothing while the cost of having > type errors propagate beyond the point where they happened is big. >
Actually, I use it often enough to be useful. Probably more often than numeric exponentiation, and I'm sure you'd agree that 3**7 is better than requiring math.pow(3,7). I don't understand your point about type errors; how does "="*79 cause type errors? Or initializing a list of zeroes with [0]*20 ? And believe you me, the number of times I have *wished* for features like these when working in other languages (mainly SourcePawn) makes me definitely not see them as mistakes. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/HZXSXQ33VSWWTJD3PV2TABVEOALXDNE4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
