On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:54 am ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ wrote: > Jumping in: > > What if a construct > > xx(*args1, **kwargs1)yy(*args2, **kwargs2) > > was interpreted as > > xxyy(*(args1+args2), **(kwargs1+kwargs2)) > > (Note: with **(kwargs1+kwargs2) I mean “put keyword arguments in the > order given”, since dicts can't be added) > > This construct is currently a syntax error. The intent of this idea is > to help improve legibility.
I don't think it does that. I think it is misleading, as it looks like two independent function calls. It also makes it hard to search for a function call -- instead of searching for do_something\(.*\) you have to now search for do_something\(.*\) do\(.*\)_something\(.*\) do_\(.*\)something\(.*\) do_some\(.*\)thing\(.*\) and so on. > Example: > def place_at(item, x, y): blah blah > could be called as > place(item)_at(x, y) You would probably like the Xtalk family of languages, starting with Hypertalk from Apple in the late 80s or early 90s. There's a neat implementation here: http://code.google.com/p/openxion/ Xtalk includes syntax like this: put newStr into character 23 to 42 of theStr put suffix after theStr delete first char of theStr although this only applied to built-in functions, not user-functions. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
