On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:11:00 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > "This is a string" / 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin", "g"] > and "This is a string" // 3 ==> ["This ", "is a ", "strin"] > then "This is a string" % 3 ==> ["g"] or possibly "g" > > which is incompatible with current usage. But that's a meaning that > makes reasonable sense as "modulo".
So why are we all so comfortable with using "*" as the operator for multiplication? I'm sure that a new programming language that dared to use U+00D7 or U+2715 for multiplication would be instantly rejected on the grounds that it was confusing and incompatible with current practice. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk) doesn't even list multiplication as a mathematical use of the asterisk. Until recently, the number of characters available to a programming language was limited (APL notwithstanding). Practicality beat (paste tense) purity. Dan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list