sequence multiplied by -1
Antoon.Pardon at rece.vub.ac.be
Mon Oct 4 13:40:06 CEST 2010
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 04:38:16AM +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:24:11 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 8:20 am, Grant Edwards <inva... at invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> So now I suppose "+" for string concatenation is a bad thing.
> > Yes. It's not the end of the world, but a separate concatenation
> > operator would have been better. Then there's no temptation to special
> > case a failure of sum(list_of_strings), because it's not a sum any more.
> I'll give you the case of sum, and I'll admit that I've often thought
> that concatenation should be written & rather than +, but I wonder how
> much difference it would really make?
> If we wrote s & t for concatenation instead of s + t, would people now be
> bitching that it uses the same operator as bitwise-and?
Possibly. It would depend on the fact if there are people in need for
a class needs an operator that falls into the bitwise-and abstraction and
an operator that falls into the concat abstraction.
> If so, then we haven't gained anything, and the only thing that would
> satisfy such people would be for every function name and operator to be
> unique -- something which is impossible in practice, even if it were
I doubt that. I have never heard anyone ask for a different symbol
for integer and float addition. What I would prefer is a different
name and operator for each kind of abstraction.
More information about the Python-list