On Mon, 26 Dec 2022 at 10:02, <shironeko.pyt...@tesaguri.club> wrote: > > 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.
Yeah, they're both useful features, and both handled by the simple rule of "evaluate late-bound defaults in the context of the function body". 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/5A5UGJDLHW66VJXWUE4S6TSFLMFZIIDC/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
