On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 08:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:02:04AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 22:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > > There's no consensus that this feature is worth the added complexity, or
> > > even what the semantics are. The
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 12:02:04AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 22:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > There's no consensus that this feature is worth the added complexity, or
> > even what the semantics are. The PEP punts on the semantics, saying that
> > the behaviour may
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 01:58:28PM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
> Please. This has been many times by several people already. No-one is
> going to change their mind on this by now. There's no point in
> rehashing it and adding noise to the thread.
Rob, there's no rule that only
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 22:38, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> There's no consensus that this feature is worth the added complexity, or
> even what the semantics are. The PEP punts on the semantics, saying that
> the behaviour may vary across implementations.
Excuse me? I left one or two things
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 14:04, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas
wrote:
>
> Please. This has been many times by several people already. No-one is going
> to change their mind on this by now. There's no point in rehashing it and
> adding noise to the thread.
To be fair, the only real point in
Please. This has been many times by several people already. No-one is
going to change their mind on this by now. There's no point in
rehashing it and adding noise to the thread.
Best wishes
Rob Cliffe
On 15/06/2022 13:43, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:
As well as all the matters Steven raises, I
As well as all the matters Steven raises, I continue to dislike the
proposal for the same reason I did on earlier rounds. I believe a general
"deferred computation" mechanism is useful, but that one limited to the
context of function parameters does more harm than good is scoped narrowly
to that
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 11:59:44AM +0100, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
> I used to prefer `:=` but coming back to this topic after a long
> interval I am happy with `=>` and perhaps I even like it more, Chris.
> The PEP status is "Draft". What are the chances of something happening
>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 07:41:12AM -0400, Todd wrote:
> This has been proposed many times. You can check the mailing list history.
> Such proposals have been even less popular then PEP 671, since it requires
> a new keyword, which is generally avoided at nearly all costs,
Now that Python is
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 10:44:28AM -, Mathew Elman wrote:
> Could this be the behaviour of passing in an Ellipsis? e.g.
>
> def foo(defaults_to_one=1):
> return defaults_to_one
>
> assert foo(...) == foo()
It isn't clear to me whether your question is a request for clarification
(does
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 20:45, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> Could this be the behaviour of passing in an Ellipsis? e.g.
>
> def foo(defaults_to_one=1):
> return defaults_to_one
>
> assert foo(...) == foo()
>
> def bar(something=...):
> return foo(something)
>
> assert bar() == foo()
>
> def
Could this be the behaviour of passing in an Ellipsis? e.g.
def foo(defaults_to_one=1):
return defaults_to_one
assert foo(...) == foo()
def bar(something=...):
return foo(something)
assert bar() == foo()
def baz(arg): # no defaults
return arg
assert baz(...) == ...
The only
12 matches
Mail list logo
