On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 13:11 Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SUMMARY: > Some news. I've just published https://pypi.org/project/kwkey/0.0.1/. > > This package is about PEP 472 -- Support for indexing with keyword > arguments > See: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0472/ > > As a result, I think we're now in a good position to try this idea out, > using present day Python. This includes building some clients that can use > the new feature, should it become available. It also includes exploring the > design of the API. > > The crucial idea is writing > >>> from kwkeys import o > >>> d[o(1, 2, a=3, b=4)] > as a stopgap, until > >>> d[1, 2, a=3, b=4] > is available. > > If you're interested, please do try it out. > > IN MORE DETAIL: > > On 3 May 2020, Andras Tontas reopened discussion of the PEP. This PEP was > created in June 2014, and closed in March 2019, due to lack of interest. > See: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2019-March/156693.html > > This time round, things went better. On 16 July, Guido wrote (substitute > PEP for PRP) > > I think it’s a reasonable idea and encourage you to start working on a >> design for the API and then a PRP. It would help if someone looked into a >> prototype implementation as well (once a design has been settled on). > > See: > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/7MHQYEOGFF764ZSME76UCMAFGPB2PR22/ > > Later on 16 July, I wrote > >> I'll now state some goals. >> > > >> 1. Define 'o' and Protocol so that NOW gives the semantics you wish for. >> 2. Extend Python so that FUTURE give the semantics you wish for. >> 3. And the NOW syntax continues to work as expected (without changing 'o' >> and Protocol). >> 4. And all current use of container[key] continues to work as before. >> > > >> I believe that it is possible to achieve these goals. My previous posts >> to this discussion outline some of the key ideas. My next step, when I have >> time, is to implement and publish general purpose code for the NOW part of >> this list of goals. > > See: > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/3IWL42XYUVODDVTPXF7EKXF6NE4JCRTV/ > > On 18 July I wrote that by the end of July I would implement and publish > general purpose code for the NOW part of these goals > See: > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/YW3JXKKSNIFII7PDNTYEOKUR3FIAFINW/ > > Earlier today, 3 days overdue, I fulfilled my commitment. I hope it helps > some of you, and does no harm to others. > -- > Jonathan > Do we have an agreement on the API as Guido requested? From my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are still talking about implementing this using a new class. However, most people who support the use of labelled indexing.and expressed an opinion support a keyword argument-based approach.
_______________________________________________ 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/VCFLB4RPZ2HERAXKCRAJYITKQTWUOIYO/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
