Actually, the key part of the new syntax, x[a=b], is not useful for typing, at least it's not something that's been discussed in the typing-sig at all. The only part we want is x[*y].
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 3:27 PM Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > I think this is really the crux of the rejection: is the new syntax being > proposed primarily to support typing, or Python in general? Does it help > both, or is one use case the motivating factor, and the other is just > piggybacking on the syntactic proposal? Quoting from the rejection email: > > > The strongest argument for the new syntax comes from the typing side of > > Python. The Steering Council is not particularly convinced it is of > > significant benefit to the static type checking language, but even if it > > were, at this point we’re reluctant to add general Python syntax that > only > > (or mostly) benefits the static typing language. If the syntax would be > of > > great benefit to static typing, it might be time to discuss letting go of > > the requirement that the typing language be a subset of Python -- but > > whether this feature is important enough to consider that is up to the > > typing community. > > The SC didn’t find general Python functionality compelling enough, or > outweighing the costs. > > It’s possible that the proposed syntax is really useful for typing, and > less compelling for Python users in general. And that’s totally fine, but > then we’ll need to discuss whether the typing language and the general > Python syntax needs to continue to track. > > Cheers, > -Barry > > > On Mar 15, 2021, at 13:07, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > > Let me clarify what the typing-sig folks wanted out of this PEP. We only > care about adding support for `x[*y]` (including things like `x[a, *b, > c]`). We'll just update PEP 646 to add that explicitly there and hope that > PEP 646 fares better than PEP 637. > > > > To fans of PEP 637 I would call out that the main reason for rejection > seems to be this paragraph: > > > > The benefits of the new syntax as outlined in the PEP are not > particularly strong, and community support for the new syntax seems low. > The new syntax doesn’t provide an obvious way to do something that is > currently error-prone, and doesn’t open up new possibilities that were not > possible before. While there are certainly cases that could use the new > syntax, for many of them it’s not clear that it would be a win, or that > third-party libraries would indeed use the syntax. The Steering Council > isn’t really convinced by any of the suggested uses in the PEP. > > > > This seems to imply that in order for a proposal like this to fare > better in the future, the authors would need to line up support from > specific, important communities like the scientific, data science or > machine learning communities. Currently such support seems absent except > for one specific package (xarray). > > > > -- > > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) > > Pronouns: he/him (why is my pronoun here?) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/MOXRTWGVRDRUMV2FAJ3W4OCWT4CMI5EO/ > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/3YVQ4I7LTVO2NCCPAGXZRAG3BJWVGSTD/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
