On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:10:34AM -0400, Ricky Teachey wrote: > But I have to say that I think this latest is a fantastic idea, and when > Jonathan presented it to me it was very surprising that I had not seen it > presented by anyone else yet. I think it solves a ton of problems,
Such as? > adds a huge amount of flexibility and functionality, Such as? > With the proposal, the language would support any function desired to turn > the "stuff" inside a subscripting operation into the item dunder calls. I'm sorry, I don't understand that sentence. > For example: if this proposal were already in place and PEP 472 were to > continue to be held up because of terrorists like me ;) *, one could have > written this translation function and PEP-472-ify their classes already: > > def yay_kwargs(self, *args, **kwargs): > return self.__getitem__(args, **kwargs) You're calling the `__getitem__` dunder with arbitrary keyword arguments. Are you the same Ricky Teachey who just suggested that we should be free to break code that uses `__getitem__` methods that don't obey the intent that they have only a single parameter and no keywords? If PEP 472 is held up, then `obj[1, 2, axis='north']` is a SyntaxError, so how does this method yay_kwargs make it legal? -- Steve _______________________________________________ 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/DYJX34W3NLRIEN2PO4WV4QEGX5CBODWH/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
