> For example, even though I was only lukewarm in support of the walrus > operator, I agree it makes a some code constructs more concise and more > readable. But it WAS new syntax to do the same thing that was already > possible with an extra line or two before. > > It's extra syntax to make a certain coding pattern shorter. I don't > believe that's absurd, I just think the balance tips the other way. >
It’s a little more than just shorter. There is no way to universally spell “not specified”: None works fine in most cases, but not all. Custom sentinels can be confusing to users, etc. All that being said, like any other PEP, there are two questions: 1) will this be an improvement? 2) if so, is it worth the churn? And the SC will need to make those decisions. FWIW, I’m not totally sure where I come down on (2) myself. because it may obstruct a much more important general feature is like to > have added. > Could someone please flesh out this objection? I can’t see at all why having late bound defaults will obstruct the addition of a general purpose deferred evaluation system. Except maybe because we could no longer use late bound defaults as a use case for a deferred object. But as Chris A has made clear, a general purpose deferred object isn’t a great fit for this use case anyway. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________ 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/4LPHP6OB4N3NIIUBHHIEDZ5L4K4XTTQ4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
