Rearranging orders of operations to put potential input last

[isaacg1]

I'd like to accumulate a list of all functions that we should swap the order of operations on to allow the use of implicit Q more often. Starting list:

• @<col><int>
• c<str><str>
• i<col><int>
• j<col><int>
• r<str><int>
• .:<col><int>
• .x<any><any>
• .c, .C, .P

I'm not sure about these:

• x<col><col>
• X

[Maltysen]

This is actually a good reason to keep the lambdas ones the way they are now instead of switching them like we were planning. Maybe keep some like m and switch say f.

[isaacg1]

I'd much prefer that they all go the same way, for learnability.

[Maltysen]

This isn't "switching" them per-say, but I feel like the default value on q should be removed or moved to something else after implicit Q has been added, since I find myself wanting to compare with the input fairly often.

[isaacg1]

That's a good point, I'll change that now. This is a good place to accumulate additional examples like that one.

[isaacg1]

Also, .> and .<

[Maltysen]

I just realized that we don't have to necessarily have to switch the input order to have he order that they fill up in switch. For example: @3 could expand to @Q3.

[pyth-watcher]

That's an interesting idea - I like anything we can do to increase backward
compatibility while getting the same advantages.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:54 PM Maltysen notifications@github.com wrote:

I just realized that we don't have to necessarily have to switch the input
order to have he order that they fill up in switch. For example: @3
could expand to @Q3.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#187 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ARXYrtJdhaOxK_hdu9oX20Oz2UwnP88oks5qLNR1gaJpZM4H_0Qb
.

[vendethiel]

Wouldn't that complicate the parser more? You need to detect you're at eof, and that you were parsing a @ (i.e. @hT)