On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:57 AM Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > > David Mertz schrieb am 23.07.2018 um 16:12: > > The need addressed by PEP 505 is real; it's also MUCH more niche and > > uncommon than something that would merit new syntax. Moreover, the actual > > legitimate purpose served by the PEP 505 syntax is easily served by > > existing Python simply by using a wrapper class. > > The discussion so far made it clear to me that > > a) there is a use case for this feature, although I never needed it myself > b) throwing new syntax at it is not the right solution > > Especially since there seem to be slightly diverging ideas about the exact > details in behaviour. Since this can be done in form of a library, people > should just drop it into a couple of competing libraries and let users > choose what they like better in their specific situation. And since we > already have a PEP now, let's continue to use it as a basis for discussion > about how these libraries should best behave in general and what mistakes > they should avoid. > > Stefan
+1 There is still no proof that such a programming pattern would be widely used or is desirable in practice. A library on PYPI could help clarifying that (and the PEP should mention it). -- 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/
