I didn't realize def foo(x, y=[]) had this strange artifact but it totally makes sense, TIL. I did not get the right idea reading the PEP though, since currently the motivation reads:
> Optional function arguments, if omitted, often have some sort of logical > default value. When this value depends on other arguments, or needs to be > reevaluated each function call, there is currently no clean way to state this > in the function header. and I kinda glossed over the second use-case. I feel like more emphasis can be added since that part is what necessitates the new syntax. I do think that being able to reference other arguments is very useful in it's own right and would go a long way in helping to solve the None check problem brought up in PEP 505 even more cleanly. _______________________________________________ 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/D4DP4UB7LPYPBNPTXIZDRVD6NOPMGPQP/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
