On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:42 PM Christopher Barker wrote:
>> On versions starting with that one, you MUST NOT have that line,
>> as it would be a SyntaxError.
>
> Huh? I was proposing doing it like was done for True and False in Python 2:
They were just builtins, not keywords at all.
> but True
> > That is, if you removed:
>
> > from math import inf
>
> > From your code, nothing would break.
>
>
> Everything would break. On versions prior to the one that introduced
> the new literal form, you MUST have that line, or your code won't
> work.
But it’s already there.
On versions starting
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 9:21 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
> I’m actually liking this more as I think about it. And it seems it wouldn’t
> actually break any code that currently defines those names. And in many
> cases, it would do the same thing as those names currently do, if a bit
>
> But then you might as
>
> > well make it a built-in name, which would behave almost exactly
>
> > the same way, and Guido doesn't want to do that.
Do you have a reference for that preference? And Guido is no longer the
> BDFL, though of course, very well respected opinion.
and you'll see
Dear python enthusiasts,
--(you can skip this part if you're in a hurry)--
4 years ago I was discovering this great language. Already an experienced
software developer and data scientist at that time, accustomed with both
low-level (C++), Object-Oriented (Java), Query (T-SQL), and Script
