Boris, give it up. That syntax is never going to fly. If you have to ask why, you're just not cut out to be a language designer.
On Nov 9, 2007 10:33 AM, Boris Borcic firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
On Nov 9, 2007 7:39 AM, Boris Borcic email@example.com wrote:
Title says it all. Got used to += et al. My mind often expects augmented assignment syntax to exist uniformly for whatever transform.
I'm not really a Guido channeler, but I'd guess this has about a 0% chance of ever making it into Python.
Function calls in Python are indicated by () following the function name. Your proposal puts the parentheses (or one of them) *before* the function name. Breaking the consistency here seems like an *extremely* bad idea.
I contend that x )= f captures some perfume of the invariant you mention, although I admit there is no comparably simple formula for the relaxed invariant (if indeed it exists).
Note that current python syntax requires any ) to follow a ( that it balances, so that's not one but two rules broken in coordination.
What happened to our chief humorist and python zen master, BTW ?
Python-ideas mailing list Pythonfirstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas