Op 2005-03-29, Ville Vainio schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>> "Antoon" == Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Antoon> Op 2005-03-27, Joal Heagney schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Antoon Pardon wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> So python choose a non-deterministic direction. To me (2,3) + (4,5)
> >>> equals (6,8). I don't dispute that having an operator to combine
> >>> (2,3) and (4,5) in (2,3,4,5) is usefull, but they should never have
> >>> used the "+" for that.
> >>
> >> ("alph", "bravo") + ("delta", "max") --> ("alphdelta", "bravomax")
>
> Antoon> No, that wouldn't be the result. You are still using "+"
> Antoon> for concatenation, even if only on strings. I say python
> Antoon> should have used something else for concatenation (string
> Antoon> concatenation included)
>
> To me, nothing is more natural than "ab" + "cd" == "abcd". Also [1,2]
> + [3,4] == [1,2,3,4]. "Dot product" is not really too useful in real
> world (non-mathematical) apps.
What is more natural, that you concatenate strings and lists or that
you use the "+" for it. Suppose python would have used '#" to express
concatenation so that "ab" # "cd" == "abcd". After using this for
sometime nothing would have been more natural than this.
--
Antoon Pardon
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
