Getting rid of bitwise operators in Python 3?
grante at visi.com
Sat Sep 22 07:19:42 CEST 2007
On 2007-09-22, Carl Banks <pavlovevidence at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone with me here? (I know the deadline for P3 PEPs has passed; this
> is just talk.)
> Not many people are bit-fiddling these days.
> One of the main uses of bit fields is flags, but that's not
> often done in Python because of keyword arguments and dicts,
> which are lot more versatile. Another major use, talking to
> hardware, is not something oft done in Python either.
I do it all the time.
Bit fiddling is also required for implementing communications
> It seems like this occasional usage wouldn't justify having built-in
> operators on its own. And with the int/long unification, it makes a bit
> less sense to think of integers as a bit field. Python has these
> operators because of its heritage, but Python continues to move away from
> the bad habits of its ancestors (integer division and so on), and I
> wonder if this isn't another one.
> Of course I'm not suggesting to get rid of bitwise operations altogether;
> just make them builtin functions: "x & 1" becomes "bitwise_and(x,1)" and
> so on.
> Is it worth it to make such a change? It would remove a lot of operators
> (11 by my count), vastly simplifying syntax, Which, IMHO, is no small
If you don't want to use the bitwise operations, then ignore
them. Presto! Simpler syntax.
> Obviously, how widespread their usage is would matter. But keep in mind
> it would also be easy to convert the code automatically, because the
> Python parser could reliably find all bitwise operations reliably.
The resulting code wold be fugly.
More information about the Python-list