Op 2005-11-22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Should some of the unicode mathematical symbols be reserved for
> literals?
> It would be greatly preferable to write \u2205 instead of the other
> proposed
> empty-set literal notation, {-}. Perhaps nullary operat
Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> It should be possible to define operators using punctuation,
> alphanumerics, or both:
>
> ]+[
> ]add[
> ]outer*[
Seems like you look for advanced source-code editors.Some ideas are
around for quite a while e.g. here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming
Joseph Garvin wrote:
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
>> excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even
>> surpass, the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl,
>> APL and INTERCAL.
s/expressiveness/u
On 23/11/05, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> see also:
>
> http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/archives/000666.html
> http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0666.html
PEP 666 should have been left open. There are a number of ideas that
come up here that should be added to it - and
Simon Brunning wrote:
>> What do you mean by unicode operators? Link?
>
> http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/03/19/jsr666_extended_operator_set
see also:
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/archives/000666.html
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0666.html
--
http://mail.python.org/
On 23/11/05, Joseph Garvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by unicode operators? Link?
http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2003/03/19/jsr666_extended_operator_set
--
Cheers,
Simon B,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/py
Joseph Garvin wrote:
> >Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
> >excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even surpass,
> >the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl, APL and
> >INTERCAL.
> >
> What do you mean by unicode operators
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Each unicode character in the class 'Sm' (Symbol,
> Math) whose value is greater than 127 may be used as a user-defined operator.
EXCELLENT idea, Jeff!
> Also, to accomodate operators such as u'\N{DOUBLE INTEGRAL}', which are not
> simple unary or b
Tom Anderson wrote:
>Jeff Epler's proposal to use unicode operators would synergise most
>excellently with this, allowing python to finally reach, and even surpass,
>the level of expressiveness found in languages such as perl, APL and
>INTERCAL.
>
>tom
>
>
>
What do you mean by unicode operat
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> User-defined operators could be defined like the following: ]+[
Eeek. That really doesn't look right.
Could you remind me of the reason we can't say [+]? It seems to me that an
operator can never be a legal filling for an array literal or a subscr
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:08:41PM -0800, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> Actually, that's a better syntax than the one I proposed, too:
>
> __+__
> # __add__ # this one's already in use, so not allowed
> __outer*__
Again, this means something already.
>>> __ = 3
>>> __+__
6
>>> __outer = 'x'
>>>
> if [1,2]+[3,4] != [1,2,3,4]: raise TestFailed, 'list concatenation'
> Since it contains ']+[' I assume it must now be parsed as a user-defined
> operator, but this code currently has a meaning in Python.
Yes. I agree that this is a fatal flaw in my suggestion.
Perhaps there is no syntax
> Here is a thought: Python already supports an unlimited number of
> operators, if you write them in prefix notation:
And indeed, so far Python hasn't added user-defined operators because this
has been adequate.
> Here is some syntax that I don't object to, although that's not saying
> much.
>
"Steve R. Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been studying Python recently, and I read a comment on one
> web page that said something like "the people using Python for heavy math
> really wish they could define their own operators". The specific
> example was to define an "outer prod
Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> I have been studying Python recently, and I read a comment on one
> web page that said something like "the people using Python for heavy math
> really wish they could define their own operators". The specific
> example was to define an "outer product" operator for matric
If your proposal is implemented, what does this code mean?
if [1,2]+[3,4] != [1,2,3,4]: raise TestFailed, 'list concatenation'
Since it contains ']+[' I assume it must now be parsed as a user-defined
operator, but this code currently has a meaning in Python.
(This code is the first example
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:48:05 -0800, Steve R. Hastings wrote:
> User-defined operators could be defined like the following: ]+[
[snip]
> Examples of use:
>
> m = m0 ]*[ m1
> m = m0]*[m1
That looks to me like multiplying two lists. I have to look twice to see
that the operands are merely m0 and
I have been studying Python recently, and I read a comment on one
web page that said something like "the people using Python for heavy math
really wish they could define their own operators". The specific
example was to define an "outer product" operator for matrices. (There
was even a PEP, numbe
18 matches
Mail list logo
