On 2/24/2020 2:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
The biggest problem remains that 99% of your explanation (and that of
others who seem to understand what you want) uses the words of the
application domain (statistics, stochastic variables, distributions)
in a way that is unhelpful to convey your needs to those who are in a
position to implement and support your proposal.
My problem with the proposal is that it's basically: "we want an
operator to add some application-specific functionality using dunders".
That's fine, I'd like that too! But the problem is that order to add an
operator we need to specify the associativity and precedence. These
can't be answered without knowing how the operator will fit into the
problem domain (see [1] for the same discussion about the '@' operator).
So now we're adding an operator that's specific to one problem domain,
and the decisions we make might make it not be super useful elsewhere.
And who's to say that the given problem domain is even that important?
It's not like we've done a survey to figure out what code is being held
back for want of a new operator: it's just that this proposal popped up
here first.
Eric
[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/#precedence-and-associativity
_______________________________________________
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/J7O2TRLF4UOWUNCBJWGK4KFX7I5T7YRX/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
