@CHB: Can you be a bit more careful with your trimming. You've removed
the attribution of the poster. What I wrote was just the reply starting
from the "-1" line.
On 2020-07-21 16:37, Christopher Barker wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage, but:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:31 AM MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com
<mailto:pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com>> wrote:
terms of simplification would be not creating `fun` as a keyword
and allowing developers to create functions in Python without a
keyword (like in C-family). That way, a new proposal would be
changing:
>>>> x(method: fun[int, dict] -> None) -> None:
one trick is that x(some, stuff) is currently a valid expression.
One real difference between C and Python is that C has "declarations",
and not just of functions. Python does not, hence the keyword.
As you pointed out in your initial post -- many languages use a
keyword to declare a function -- I can't see the gain from getting rid
of that -- even if it were a new language, and we didn't have backward
compatibility to worry about.
I haven't written a whole lot of C, but I always found the function
declaration syntax kind of confusing.
-CHB
> ... pass
> ...
>>>> type(x)
> <class 'fun'>
>
> What do you think?
>
-1
It's clearer if you say upfront that you're defining a function,
which
is that 'def' does.
_______________________________________________
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/BP6XJU2PGJNVKOQPJYRRR4UPZTDBOCTL/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
