On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 6:48 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I'm sorry, I did not see your comment that you thought new syntax was a
> bad idea. If I had, I would have responded directly to that.
>
Well... I don't think it's the worst idea ever. But in general adding more
operators is something I am
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 03:17:18PM -0500, David Mertz wrote:
> Many apologies if people got one or more encrypted versions of this.
>
> On 2/7/19 12:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> It wasn't a concrete proposal, just food for thought. Unfortunately the
> thinking seems to have missed the point
Many apologies if people got one or more encrypted versions of this.
On 2/7/19 12:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It wasn't a concrete proposal, just food for thought. Unfortunately the
thinking seems to have missed the point of the Julia syntax and run off
with the idea of a wrapper class.
I did
Here are some alternate syntaxes.
These are all equivalent to len(print(list)).
(len | print)(list)
(len |> print)(list)
(print <| len)(list)
print <| len << list
list >> print <| len
list >> len |> print
## Traditional argument order
print <| len << list
## Stored functions
print_lengths =
On 2019-02-07 05:27, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:03 PM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
At the risk of causing confusion^1, we could have a "vector call"
syntax:
# apply len to each element of obj, instead of obj itself
len[obj]
which has the advantage that it only requires t
Was: "Dart (Swift) like multi line strings indentation"
This discussion petered-out but I liked the idea, as it alleviates something
occasionally annoying.
Am supportive of the d'' prefix, perhaps the capital prefixes can be deprecated
to avoid issues? If not, a sometimes-optimized (or C-acc
