On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:03:32PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >Let's say you're reading from a CSV file, creating an object from each > >row, and processing it: > > Okay, I can see it could be useful for situations like that. > > But this is still a completely different use case from the > one that started this discussion, which was making it less > painful to add new keywords to the language. The backslash > idea doesn't help at all with that.
Doesn't help *at all*? Sure it does. It's Python 3.8, and I learn that in 4.0 "spam" is going to become a keyword. I simply take my code and change all the references spam to \spam, and I've future-proofed the code for 4.0 while still keeping compatibility with 3.8 and 3.9. (But not 3.7 of course. But we can't have everything.) If my code is a library which others will use, the benefit is even bigger. (For a purely internal project, I could just replace spam with spam_ and be done with it.) But for a library, I already have public documentation saying that my API is the function spam(), and I don't want to have to change the public API. As far as my library's users are concerned, nothing has changed. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Pythonfirstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/