This syntax seems ugly to me, clunky, and as you said probably breaks existing code
This, to me, is less clear than current methods of generating an 'inf' which is the whole reason I proposed it
Thanks, ---- *Cade Brown* Research Assistant @ ICL (Innovative Computing Laboratory) Personal Email: brown.cade@gmail.com ICL/College Email: cade@utk.edu
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 AM Ricky Teachey ricky@teachey.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:09 AM Random832 random832@fastmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, at 12:45, Cade Brown wrote:
I am positing that Python should contain a constant (similar to True, False, None), called Infinity.
What if we created a new syntax [and used it for the repr] that is not currently a valid identifier?
something like "1.INF"
This is out of the box and might be considered insane, but what about:
INF#
INF#
INF # this is a comment as usual
NameError: INF
But I suppose this would be considered a breaking change, since the text "INF#" probably exists in code somewhere.
Ricky.
"I've never met a Kentucky man who wasn't either thinking about going home or actually going home." - Happy Chandler
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VAJC2I... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/