On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:10 PM David Mertz, Ph.D. <david.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Easy! Look at EVERY Python function that uses a sentinel. They all get a
> little bit worse under your proposal.
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021, 9:54 PM Chris Angelico
>>
>> > An obvious reason to oppose it is that it is a much worse way of writing
>> > an existing sentinel check.
>> This is what I want to see an example of.
They do? Please go into more detail. Please explain how this becomes worse:
def f(a:Optional[List]=None):
if a is None: a = []
... # use a
# becoming
def f(a:List=>[]):
... # use a
The hyperbolic assertion that EVERY function that uses a sentinel will
get worse is clearly false, since not every function would be
rewritten in this way. But even if every function that gets rewritten
is worse, you haven't shown how that's the case.
Please. I am BEGGING you for actual arguments here. I want something
that I can usefully respond to. Why do we have to go round and round
and round with nothing??
ChrisA
_______________________________________________
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/PZ7UBGJSWFFGV6JG2AQDKLJDUALZB36Z/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
