<div dir="ltr">Dear Greg,<br><br>Thanks for your email.<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">Guido is on record as opposing any kind of macros<br>
or other "extensible syntax", and this probably comes<br>under the same heading.<br></blockquote><br>Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for when I asked:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
Now since this is such a simple idea, I'm guessing it occured to
pythonistas at some point in 1992, and got voted down and that decision
has now become scripture. Is that the case?<br></blockquote><br>Case closed.<br><br>Sincerely,<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Sébastien Loisel<br><br>PS:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
This argues for a function such as solve(A, b). It<br>doesn't argue for an infix operator.<br></blockquote><br>I know, I was demolishing PEP 211, not trying to support my point.<br><br><pre><br></pre><br>
</div>