[Python-ideas] Is there a good reason to use * for multiplication?
steve at pearwood.info
Sat Oct 13 10:18:12 CEST 2012
On 13/10/12 19:05, Yuval Greenfield wrote:
> A PEP for defining operators sounds interesting for 4.0 indeed. Though it
> might be messy to allow a module to meddle with the python syntax.
You mean more than classes already do? :)
> Perhaps instead I would like it if all operators were objects with e.g.
> special __infix__ methods.
I believe that Haskell treats operators as if they were function objects,
so you could do something like:
negative_values = map(-, values)
but I think that puts the emphasis on the wrong thing. If (and that's a big
if) we did something like this, it should be a pair of methods __op__ and
the right-hand version __rop__ which get called on the *operands*, not the
def __op__(self, other, symbol)
More information about the Python-ideas