On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 06:33:39PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> >Which is why these proposals always seem to gravitate to "anything you
>> >can assign to",
>>
>> There might be some parsing
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 06:33:39PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> >Which is why these proposals always seem to gravitate to "anything you
> >can assign to",
>
> There might be some parsing difficulties with that, e.g.
>
>def foo(x)[5](y, z):
> ...
>
> That should
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:11:46PM -0600, Steve Dower wrote:
> When you apply the "what if everyone did this" rule, it looks like a
> bad idea (or alternatively, what if two people who weren't expecting
> anyone else to do this did it).
When you apply that rule, Python generally fails badly.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:17:54PM +0200, Markus Meskanen wrote:
> Well yes, but I think you're a bit too fast on labeling it a mistake to use
> monkey patching...
More importantly, I think we're being a bit too quick to label this
technique "monkey-patching" at all. Monkey-patching (or MP for
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017, at 00:33, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > Which is why these proposals always seem to gravitate to "anything you
> > can assign to",
>
> There might be some parsing difficulties with that, e.g.
>
> def foo(x)[5](y, z):
>...
>
> That should be
Chris Angelico wrote:
Which is why these proposals always seem to gravitate to "anything you
can assign to",
There might be some parsing difficulties with that, e.g.
def foo(x)[5](y, z):
...
That should be acceptable, because foo(x)[5] is something
assignable, but foo(x) looks like