> On 5 Jul 2023, at 21:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:02, Dom Grigonis wrote:
>> What I would alternatively propose is to introduce a couple of (meaningless
>> operators), so that library developers can make use of them as they wish.
>> What characters aren't used? “$
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:02, Dom Grigonis wrote:
> What I would alternatively propose is to introduce a couple of (meaningless
> operators), so that library developers can make use of them as they wish.
> What characters aren't used? “$, ?, `” (or are they?).
>
What should their precedences be?
From perspective of calculation time of matrix multiplications Infix operators
is a reasonable solution to define a subset of your own.
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/misc/sage/misc/decorators.html#sage.misc.decorators.infix_operator
The problem is that if one implements it, there ha
None of the other repeated infix operators follow the same "repeated
application" relation that * and ** have, i.e.
// isn't repeated division,
<< and >> aren't repeated inequality comparisons (whathever that may be),
and == isn't repeated assignment.
__
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 at 11:18, wrote:
>
>
> Python has the "star" ("*") operator for multiplication. In the context of
> collections it is supposed to mean element-wise multiplication. Its
> associated operator is __mul__. It also has the double star ("**") operator
> for exponentiation, which is
Every Python idea that has ever been proposed "for the sake of
completeness" has been rejected... at least in the 24 years I've been
following such closely.
Do you have an actual compelling use case? An abstract symmetry isn't going
to do it.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 6:17 AM wrote:
>
> Python has
