On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 23:13, Brendan Barnwell <brenb...@brenbarn.net> wrote: > > On 2021-10-30 15:07, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote: > > I'm -100 now on "deferred evaluation, but contorted to be useless > > outside of argument declarations." > > > > At first I thought it might be harmless, but nothing I really care > > about. After the discussion, I think the PEP would be actively harmful > > to future Python features. > > I'm not sure I'm -100, but still a hard -1, maybe -10. > > I agree it seems totally absurd to add a type of deferred expression > but restrict it to only work inside function definitions. That doesn't > make any sense. If we have a way to create deferred expressions we > should try to make them more generally usable.
I was in favour of the idea, but having seen the implications I'm now -0.5, moving towards -1. I'm uncomfortable with *not* having a "proper" mechanism for building signature objects and other introspection (I don't consider having the expression as a string and requiring consumers to eval it, to be "proper"). And so, I think the implication is that this feature would need some sort of real deferred expression to work properly - and I'd rather deferred expressions were defined as a standalone mechanism, where the full range of use cases (including, but not limited to, late-bound defaults!) can be considered. Paul _______________________________________________ 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/3UNMX3BEFWA2HJMKQSPVGC574QCWP5UV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
