On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 15:53, Brandt Bucher <brandtbuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > Use punctuation ("sigils") to mark as-binding terms. This choice still
> seems to be under-considered. (As in: it doesn't seem like many people,
> including the PEP authors, tried to say "indeed, what if?" and feel thru
> it. I mean, try really hard. I trust the "gang of 4" spent maybe whole few
> hours on that and delivered "no" to all us. It's still not the same as
> dozens of people trying it over a few months).
>
> To anyone actually wondering how much time and mental energy we’ve spent
> on a particular issue: please take a look at our tracker before guessing
> “maybe whole few hours”:
>
> - Issue #1(!), April, 29 comments:
> https://github.com/gvanrossum/patma/issues/1
> - Issue #90, June, 84 comments:
> https://github.com/gvanrossum/patma/issues/90
> - Issue #92, June, 33 comments:
> https://github.com/gvanrossum/patma/issues/92
> - Issue #105, June, 17 comments:
> https://github.com/gvanrossum/patma/issues/105
> - Issue #143, August, 7 comments:
> https://github.com/gvanrossum/patma/issues/143
>
> (I won't judge anyone for skimming a bit; it's a *lot* of discussion. Do
> note, though, that for months I was one of the proponents of store sigils
> like `?` until I was eventually convinced otherwise.)
>
> That's also not counting side-discussions in other issues, countless
> mailing list threads, two competing PEPs that make many of the same
> choices, a video call with the SC, etc.
>
> I'll also add, for anyone considering choosing yet another ASCII symbol
> off their keyboard and proposing it as a “novel”, “intuitive” marker: one
> problem with most of the hastily suggested adornments are that they do not
> nest very well, for even simple cases. Further, the fact that constructions
> like `p = Point(x, y)` look exactly the same as deconstructions like `case
> Point(x, y):` is absolutely intentional (which touches back on Guido’s
> “rhyme” comment last night).
>
> Very briefly, compare the current syntax:
>
> ```
> case first, *middle, last:
> rebuilt = first, *middle, last
> case {"key": value, **rest}:
> rebuilt = {"key": value, **rest}
> case Point(x=a, y=b):
> rebuilt = Point(x=a, y=b)
> ```
>
> with (using your own syntactic flavor):
>
> ```
> case >first, *>middle, >last:
> rebuilt = first, *middle, last
> case {"key": >value, **>rest}:
> rebuilt = {"key": value, **rest}
> case Point(x=>a, y=>b):
> rebuilt = Point(x=a, y=b)
> ```
>
Well, this example is a bit unfair, since you don't present a case where
there would be
matching values in variables that we would want to compare - which is the
solution
that is being brought up.
And even in that case, while I can see:
case Point(x=>a, y=>b):
and immediately read it as "attribute x from point goes into a",
the line in the current proposal doing the same:
case Point(x=a, y=b):
is far from being immediately obvious (Am I creating a new Point?
Am i assigning "a" to "x"? If so, where does "a" come from??)
> (I had to stop and think *hard* where exactly the `>` should go in
> `*middle` and `**rest`. I'm not confident I made the correct guess, either.)
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
> Message archived at
> https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/7SJ2SOPRD6XOAISOYXONKXUKB3JMLYNU/
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KTRXIM7A3OATCHZZXBULLSNZZ3BNSGJK/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
