On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:50:53AM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 19/04/20 6:58 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >There are three tokens there: `**{`, an identifier, and `}`. Adding an
> >optional comma makes four.
> >
> >If this is your idea of "complicated syntax", I cannot imagine how you
> >cope with function definitions in their full generality:
>
> What I mean is that much simpler syntaxes have been proposed
> that achieve the same goal, and that don't look like something
> they're not.
I'll accept the second part, but what are those "much simpler" syntaxes?
I know of these alternatives:
**{alpha, beta, gamma}
**{:alpha, :beta, :gamma}
*, alpha, beta, gamma
**, alpha, beta, gamma
alpha=, beta=, gamma=
although I may have missed some. I'm not seeing "much" difference in
complexity between them, syntax-wise.
Can we at least try to avoid unnecessary hyperbole in describing ideas
we don't like? It's disheartening and frustrating to see microscopic
differences blown all out of proportion.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/F4XXVR3IM5MEPXGTBIQYYVQVQZZFKBGS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
