On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 09:18:40PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
While it's tempting, it does create an awkward distinction.
f(1, 2, 3) # look up f, call it with parameters f[1, 2, 3] # look up f, subscript it with paramters f{1, 2, 3} # construct a frozenset
You forgot f"1, 2, {x+1}" # eval some code and construct a string Not to mention: r(1, 2, 3) # look up r, call it with parameters r[1, 2, 3] # look up r, subscript it r"1, 2, 3" # a string literal
And that means it's going to be a bug magnet.
I don't think that f{} will be any more of a bug magnet than f"" and r"" already are.
Are we able to instead make a sort of vector literal?
<1, 2, 3>
Back in the days when Python's parser was LL(1), that wasn't possible. Now that it uses a PEG parser, maybe it is, but is it desirable? Reading this makes my eyes bleed: >>> <1, 2, 3> < <1, 2, 3, 4> True
Unfortunately there aren't many symbols available, and Python's kinda locked into a habit of using just one at each end (rather than, say, (<1, 2, 3>) or something), so choices are quite limited.
Triple quoted strings say hello :-) {{1, 2, 3}} would work, since that's currently a runtime error. But I prefer the f{} syntax. -- Steve