Without decorator too (that was Lukasz’ idea). Why bother with the decorator (*if* we were to go there)?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 13:16 Joao S. O. Bueno <jsbu...@python.org.br> wrote: > My eyes are bleeding with these incomplete function definitions. > If you are using decorators and "def", then, please, there is no > need for special syntax that would just be a syntax error > in "normal"Python., Just add ": pass" to the end. > > If eyes bleeding is not enough of an argument for you: > the new syntax would only be possible be usable in code > that would run on Python 3.11 and above. While using > the decorator + function declaration syntax, you have the > annotations that could readly be checked and code compatible with > existing all supported Python versions, right out of the box. > > On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 16:31, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > >> On 2021-12-23 19:04, asleep.c...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Hello and thank you for the much needed feedback. >> > >> > One thing that you must consider is that function prototypes >> > have a few implications beyond typing but it seems like you're >> > only looking at it as a tool for type hinting. The interpreter will >> > create a function prototype object regardless of if you forget your >> > decorator, it needs to pass something to the decorator after all. >> > >> > After reading through your reply, I am seeing that the main concern >> > is the bloat added by the lambda keyword. My decision to use lambda >> > instead of introducing a special syntax was one that required heavy >> > deliberation. I ultimately decided to stick with lambda because it was >> > consistent with the prototype statement form. The fact that lambda >> > is hard to type has been felt by almost everyone who has ever used >> > Python, this isn't just a problem that would be introduced by >> > function prototypes. PEP 677 has taken the lazy approach to solving >> > this issue and has prioritized type hinting over functionality. PEP 667 >> > also suggests the usage of => for lambdas which would likely >> > never be accepted because of the confusion it would cause. >> > As someone who has used typing with Python, I do think that a new >> > callable syntax is needed, but I truly believe that PEP 677 is taking >> the >> > wrong approach. >> > >> > So what if we broke every Python program in existence by creating a >> > new lambda syntax, how would it look? This question is particularly >> > hard to answer because the body and annotations both need to be >> > optional. Our best bet is an augmented form of the PEP 677 syntax >> > that allows you to add a body. Here is an example: >> > >> > (a: int) -> int: a ** 2 >> > >> > But of course this causes ambiguity when the return annotation and >> > body are both omitted. One thing that I did consider is simply treating >> > it like a tuple if there is no return annotation AND there is no body, >> but >> > that might lead to confusion. Another thing that I considered is a >> different >> > prefix than lambda: >> > >> > $(a: int) -> int: a ** 2 >> > >> Usually the suggestion is to use 'def': >> >> def (a: int) -> int: a ** 2 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/AKS4IHJJFDV24QZNMVMFZR72H5ORU3TB/ >> 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/BGQUJQCBW72WDGRKXT5JXKS2AEBS36OJ/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido (mobile)
_______________________________________________ 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/KE55W466H433ECZ4GSSSW2AXNFHZFBC4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
