Agreed. I think this may require some TLC to get right, but posting here for
feedback on the idea overall seemed like a good start. As far as I know, the
basic list and dict do not inspect what they contain. I.e.
d = {}
d['a']= delayed: stuff()
b=d['a']
b would end up as still the thunk, and stuff wouldn't be executed until either
d['a'] or b actually is read from.
-Joseph
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:29 AM, Joseph Hackman <josephhack...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> ChrisA: I am not sure about collections. I think it may be fine to not
>> special case it: if the act of putting it in the collection reads anything,
>> then it is evaluated, and if it doesn't it isn't. The ideal design goal for
>> this would be that all existing code continues to function as if the change
>> wasn't made at all, except that the value is evaluated at a different time.
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm just worried that it'll become useless without that. For
> instance, passing arguments to a function that uses *a,**kw is going
> to package your thunk into a collection, and that's how (eg) the
> logging module will process it.
>
> It's not going to be easy to have a simple AND useful definition of
> "this collapses the waveform, that keeps it in a quantum state", but
> sorting that out is fairly key to the proposal.
>
> ChrisA
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
