Love the proposed syntax, it's clear and visible without being verbose. I was a
bit worried with the "=:" syntax as, at first glance, it can be easily mistaken
with a regular "=" but you can't miss "=>". Also, I think the syntax fits
really well with the meaning of the operator, which is important.
I'm also partial to "?=", as a second option, as it reads like a ternary
operator (x?=len(y) -> x if x else len(y))
The point about scope for late-binding is also interesting and a good idea. It
gives us what I think is powerful syntax for OO:
class Foo:
def bar(self, baz=>self.baz):
...
This is great! +10 from me.
_______________________________________________
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/UUEGPM3KRGYTMGPPN5R7OZHS3C5WVKD6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
