> Robert, Since you do so much work on Cython, maybe you could think > about the formal specification of the Python language and see whether > .. > not appearing in a string is ever valid Python. I.e., could we add > [expr1 .. expr2] > to the language without running into problems?
Much like generators (K.<x>), this cannot be added to the preparser without parsing arbitary python expressions (expr1 and expr2 in this case). At the moment, you can make the preparser barf and it would be a great deal of work to fix. Are we willing to do another "correct 90% of the time" hack? If this is considered very valuable, I suggest we hijack a Python binary operator and repurpose it. Or we could uniformly preparse '..' to be that redefined operator; that would be better. I vote against. Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
