gratuitous new features in 2.0

[David]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:13:52 +0200, Michael Ströder <michael at stroeder.com>
wrote:

>Mike Fletcher wrote:
>> 
>> Afraid I'm not really finding the ">>" syntax very beautiful/clear/obvious
>> either.
>
>To me it seems very ugly either. No real reason to make a syntax
>change for this simple thing.

Ditto.  One of the beauties of Python has been its readability.  Readable
text is not typically filled with arcane symbols.
 
If this sort of construct needs to be done, I vote for using "to"...