On Thursday, March 27, 2014 3:06:02 PM UTC+5:30, Antoon Pardon wrote: > On 26-03-14 17:37, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Antoon Pardon > >> Of course we don't have to follow mathematical convention with python. > >> However allowing any > >> unicode symbol as an identifier doesn't prohibit from using √ as an > >> operator. We do have > >> "in" and "is" as operators now, even if they would otherwise be acceptable > >> identifiers. > >> So I wonder, would you consider to introduce log as an operator. 2 log x > >> seems an interesting > >> operation for a programmer. > > If it's going to become an operator, then it has to be a keyword. > > Changing a token that is currently allowed to be an identifier into a > > keyword is generally avoided as much as possible, because it breaks > > backward compatibility. "in" and "is" have both been keywords for a > > very long time, perhaps since the initial release of Python.
> I know, for such a reason I would love it if keywords would have been > written like this: 𝗱𝗲𝗳 (using mathematical bold) instead of just like > this: def (using plain latin letters). It would mean among other things > we could just write operator.not instead of having to write operator.not_ Just out of curiosity how do/did you type that? When I see an exotic denizen from the unicode-universe I paste it into emacs and ask "Who are you?" But with your 'def' my emacs is going a bit crazy! -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list