On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 22:53, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most of that is a *massive* YAGNI as regards function default > arguments. We do not need parallel execution just to figure out the > length of a list passed as a previous parameter. So you've just added > weight to my argument that a generic "delayed" feature is a completely > separate proposal, nothing whatsoever to do with PEP 671. If we concede that delayed expressions are a separate proposal, would you be willing to address the other issues that people have raised? At this point, it seems like the "deferred expressions" debate is distracting everyone from all of the *other* points made by people with reservations about the proposal, which basically come down to "the benefit is limited, and the costs are too high to justify the feature". So far, the responses I've seen to that point mostly seem to come down to "I don't agree, I think the costs are small and the benefits are sufficient". That's not addressing the objections, it's just agreeing to differ¹. At a minimum, the PEP should state the objections fairly, and note that the PEP author disagrees. A PEP isn't a sales pitch, it's a summary of the discussions - so it absolutely should mention that there's been significant opposition to the proposal, which did not get resolved, if that's the reality. Paul ¹ "That's not an argument, it's just contradiction!" _______________________________________________ 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/BWIR4MZL762PMJZZVEPRBONSIAPC7ZQ6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
