All right. Thanks for the feedback. Brandt should we terminate the branch, or restructure it for the *args mechanics?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 18:43, Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> wrote: > > > Hi Stefano, > > Thank you for submitting PEP 637 (Support for indexing with keyword > arguments). The Steering Council has reviewed the PEP and after careful > consideration, we have decided to reject the PEP. There are a number of > reasons for this, but fundamentally we do not believe the benefit is great > enough to outweigh the cost of the new syntax. > > 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. > > 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 considers the cost of the new syntax significant. It’s not a natural > fit, as shown by the corner cases discussed in the PEP. It’s difficult to > teach, as indexing and function calls are not as interchangeable or > equivalent as they may appear. Looking at more complex expressions with the > new syntax, mentally parsing them is significantly harder than the equivalent > without the new syntax, even if it requires more lines of code to do the same > thing. > > In addition to all that, the SC is worried about the performance of indexing > in CPython and in other Python implementations, considering it’s a very > common operation, and about the suggested new __getitem__ protocol, > particularly the confusing corner cases of indexing with keywords and zero or > one positional items. These are not, however, the main reason we decided to > reject the PEP. > > With our appreciation, > For the whole Python Steering Council, > Thomas. > -- > Thomas Wouters <tho...@python.org> > > Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me > spread! -- Kind regards, Stefano Borini _______________________________________________ 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/66I2QLDYYHZ6MMVSTLGIQ74NY6XV2YVZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
