Hi Roland, Can you please give up on this particular idea? You've given it a fair try, and nobody is showing any interest in changing Python to match your proposal. That's usually a good indication that it will Never Happen, and if you keep arguing beyond that point you tend to be written off as out of tune.
Personally, I'd like to remind you that when I designed Python my ideal was to use punctuation in ways that are similar to the way it is used in plain English, with exceptions only for forms commonly found in many other programming languages such as foo.bar. Leading with a comma is most definitely not something one would do in English. I hope to see you continue brainstorming on other ideas. --Guido On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:21 AM roland.puntaier--- via Python-ideas < python-ideas@python.org> wrote: > I had posted this as https://github.com/python/peps/issues/1867 > The discussion so far is below. > > Please make some arguments. > > The major point to me is, that the symmetry is broken, > which leads to extra editing actions, like removing the comma in the first > line. > I guess, this was the reason to allow the comma after the last line/entry: > `[1,2,]`. > ``[,1,2]`` should also be allowed, too. > > The best argument is one that says: less or more effort in this or that > situation. > For example, with `[1,2,]`, in line-wise formatting, > one can do without special action at the last line (removing the comma > there). > > All code from previous versions of Python would still work > after a `[,1,2]` syntax allowance were introduced. > > > > ================================================================================= > rpuntaie wrote: > > ================================================================================= > > Allow initial comma > =================== > > Final comma works: > > t = ( > 1, > 2, > ) > x = [ > 1, > 2, > ] > y = { > 1, > 2, > } > z = { > 1:11, > 2:22, > } > def fun( > a, > b, > ): > pass > > Initial comma does not work: > > t = ( > , 1 > , 2 > ) > x = [ > , 1 > , 2 > ] > y = { > , 1 > , 2 > } > z = { > , 1:11 > , 2:22 > } > def fun( > , a > , b > ): > pass > > > To make the syntax symmetric in this regard\ > gives more freedom to format the code. > > I occasionally found the restriction an unnecessary nuisance. > > Before writing a PEP, I would like to discuss, > > - whether something like that has been proposed already? > - what counter-arguments there could be? > > > ================================================================================= > pxeger wrote: > > ================================================================================= > > This is not the appropriate place to propose language changes. > Try the [python-ideas]( > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/) > mailing list. However, I don't think you'll get anyone to agree. > > What kind of code style are you using where you want to put commas at > the start of the line? That is totally non-standard > (see [PEP 8](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008)), ugly, and > confusing. > > Arbitrary symmetry is not a good reason for changing the language. We > don't have a `tnirp` function just for the sake of symmetry with > `print` because it would be pointless and add extra complication > > > > ================================================================================= > rpuntaie wrote: > > ================================================================================= > > I surely agree, that not ignoring the sequence is essential. Else one > would loose identifier space and thus information. I would never have > the idea to make all permutations of `p.r.i.n.t` point to the same > function. Therefore you just made a bad example. > > But the comma is just a separator. Why did they allow to have the > comma before a closing bracket/parenthesis/brace? Because of symmetry > between lines, is my guess. > > Occasionally one sees many spaces just the have the final comma > aligned vertically. That could be avoided by placing the comma at the > beginning. > > I personally also have a macro in the editor that evaluates a line in > the parameter list, but drops an initial comma before doing that. > Therefore this is my preferred formatting. > > I don't think that [PEP](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008) > is wrong. I just don't want to be restricted by unnecessary rules. > Rules need to have a reason beyond someone dictating them. If that is > the case, I follow them, because I see the reason, but not because > someone dictates them. > > I'll go to > [Python Ide as]( > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/), > then. Thanks. > _______________________________________________ > 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/E3HYA7AWLHTD3MCWVBRH7AT3GLGXFUOG/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ 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/ES4FWNZW7F54BVFO3YDPHPOXXI5GPH5K/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
