On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:08 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:51 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:55 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rod...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 10:01 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Giampaolo Rodola' <g.rod...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:38 PM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > I find it less explicit mainly because it does 3 things at once: check > >> >> > if attribute is None, use it if it's not None and continue the > >> >> > evaluation from left to right. I find that logic to be more explicit > >> >> > when living on different lines or is clearly delimited by keywords and > >> >> > spaces. ? has no spaces, it's literally "variable names interrupted by > >> >> > question marks" and evaluation can stop at any time while scanning the > >> >> > line from left to right. Multiple "?" can live on the same line so > >> >> > that's incentive to write one-liners, really, and to me one-liners are > >> >> > always less explicit than the same logic split on multiple lines. > >> >> > >> >> Ah, I see what you mean. Well, think about what actually happens when > >> >> you write "lst.sort()". In terms of "hidden behaviour", there is far > >> >> FAR more of it in existing syntax than in the new proposals. > >> > > >> > I am not sure I'm following you (what does lst.sort() have to do with > >> > "?"?). > >> > >> The "." in "lst.sort" is an operator. How much hidden behaviour is > >> there in that? Do you actually even know every possible thing that can > >> happen? Don't feel bad if you don't - it's not an indictment of your > >> quality as a programmer, but an acknowledgement that Python's > >> attribute access is incredibly complicated. > > > > I'm [not] going to engage into a discussion about the analogy between "?" > > and "." because simply there is none. It doesn't prove anything except > > that you're not really interested in having a serious discussion about > > the pros and cons of this PEP: you just want it to happen no matter > > what. > > That's because the dot already exists in the language, and you have > become so accustomed to it that you don't see it any more. You've just > proven my point.
You're back at "since we have X that justifies the addition of Y" [1] and AFAICT that's the only argument you have provided so far in a 100+ messages discussion. [1] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-July/052068.html -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
