On 16/06/2019 03:34, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't actually know how viable this proposal is, but given that it's being debated at some length, I'd like to put in my opinion that *if* we're going to define an operator that's (roughly) synonymous with issubclass(), it should be '<:', which is used in other languages (e.g. Scala) and notational systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtyping). Overloading '<=' would be easier to implement, but would also cause enough confusion that I think we should avoid it at all cost.
I rather strongly disagree. We are describing a fairly standard incomplete ordering, which makes the comparison operators completely appropriate. Adding new syntax for something that doesn't need it is the thing likely to cause confusion. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd