On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 01:27:50PM +0000, Eloi Gaudry wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-16 at 21:15 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:29:00AM +0000, Eloi Gaudry wrote: > > > Is there some interest in the proposal or should I finally close > > > this > > > thread ? > > > > I'm definitely interested in the concept, not the suggested syntax > > or semantics. > > Would you briefly describe a syntax that would better fit this concept > ?
The syntax is the minor point: you give is an ungainly name, "runtime_assert", and your proposed PEP shows it requiring parentheses as if it were an ordinary function. The bigger problem is the semantics. As I already said in an earlier email, you don't explain what "runtime_assert_active" is (is it a per-module global variable? a single application-wide super-global? a local variable? something else?) or how we are supposed to set it. That too is an ungainly name, and the fact that there's only *one* such flag (whether it is per module or not) makes this proposal useless for my needs. Another problem is that your runtime_assert *prints* the error message instead of raising an exception, and there's no way to customise the message. But the most important reason is that I'm not really interested in adding a new keyword for this. I would much prefer to explore ways to allow ordinary functions to receive arguments and be able to delay evaluation of those arguments until needed. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
