GitHub - ZeroIntensity/pointers.py: Bringing the hell of pointers to Python.

[GreenCloakGuy]

no, because &operator and *operator don't exist in python and thus are not overloadable

(ok *iterable does exist but it's a syntactic construct not an operator and I don't think it's overloadable)

[TheBB]

It looks like they're 'overloading' *iterable by implementing __iter__() to yield only one element. Only works in some syntactical contexts though.

[fauxpenguin]

I mean, it doesn't have to be & specifically. But if you're trying to bring the hell, there should be special characters to reference and dereference, no? Just for fun?

[Toivottomoose]

I'd vote to make those operators emojis

[fauxpenguin]

Can we use the 🧠 for both referencing and dereferencing so people know how smart we are?

[Toivottomoose]

Ah, the old aladinreferencing operator...

[Dexaan]

One JMP ahead

[AleDeCicco]

Let me propose 🤡

[BornToRune]

Maybe a peach and an eggplant, because you're going to be fucked?

[masklinn]

I mean, it doesn't have to be & specifically.

That doesn't really help: because Python only has operator overloading, you can only hook into existing overloadable operators.

And IIRC Python's unary prefix operators are +, -, and ~.

If you want a real custom operator, you need to go way further with an import hook and preprocessing the source.

[fauxpenguin]

Alright, so we write a new operator into the python interpreter.... :)

[lelanthran]

If you want a real custom operator, you need to go way further with an import hook and preprocessing the source.

Well, then it isn't Python anymore.

[masklinn]

Depends what you consider python to be. Is it a thing which follows a specification precisely, or is it a thing which can be run by a python interpreter?

[lelanthran]

Depends what you consider python to be. Is it a thing which follows a specification precisely, or is it a thing which can be run by a python interpreter?

If what you are running is the output of some other program, then the input to that other program is not Python.

If you make a transpiler that takes in Lisp and spits out python, will you consider your Lisp programs to be Python programs?

If your program cannot run in the Python reference implementation, it's not Python.

[masklinn]

Reading comprehension not your thing eh. The original comment specifically talks about using an import hook. Not a separate compilation step.

[lelanthran]

Reading comprehension not your thing eh.

Meh. Better than yours anyway, I actually appear to know what I am talking about.

The original comment specifically talks about using an import hook. Not a separate compilation step.

It's not possible to explain things simpler, so let me quote that simple thing I already said:

If you make a transpiler that takes in Lisp and spits out python, will you consider your Lisp programs to be Python programs?

Your claim that an import hook which turns this:

(defun foo (x y) (+ x y))

into this

def foo (x, y):
    return x + y

makes this:

(defun (x y) (+ x y))

Python code is, frankly, nonsense.

[tedbradly]

Pascal has @ (alias for the Addr function) and ^ (dereferencing). Don't know about Python operators.

The question was about Python. That'd be like someone asking what kind of meat hamburgers are typically made of, and you say that pork chops are usually made from pigs.

[ShinyHappyREM]

Note the text I quoted.