new bitwise module [was Re: Discussion: new operators ...]

[Christian Tanzer]

hzhu at users.sourceforge.net wrote:

> >Removing operators from a language is another topic, though.
> 
> Advice well taken.  
> 
> I think there is a miscommunication to be clarified. The bitwise proposal
> was for putting the new module in, not for taking existing symbols out.  The
> latter was billed for Python 3000, which I understand is anybody's fair game
> for any speculation.
> 
> I can see that the discussion on prefering the new module to the existing
> bitwise operators (when both are available) could be alternatively read as a
> call to remove the symbols from the language in realistic terms.  That never
> crossed my mind so I didn't try to make it clear.

Well, on 02 Aug 2000 you did say (regarding a PEP):

> Well, the benefit does not show much for those who like slinging ints.  The
> overall benefit to all others, including though who sling ints occasionally,
> comes from the elimination of a large proportion of builtin operator syntax
> (complete with special symbols and precedence rules).
> 
> So why infix operators for math but not for bitwise operation?  A few
> reasons come to mind right away:
(3 reasons snipped)

My understanding of PEPs is that they are not concerned with Python
3000.

> Anyway, you are right that this is a distraction.  So let's move on.

Much luck with your matrix operators (I'd prefer something like [op], BTW).

-- 
Christian Tanzer                                         tanzer at swing.co.at
Glasauergasse 32                                       Tel: +43 1 876 62 36
A-1130 Vienna, Austria                                 Fax: +43 1 877 66 92