On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 11:26 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> What sort of testing and maintenance perspective are you referring to?
> Testing and maintenance of the Python interpreter? Or your own code?
>
> If it is your own code then this proposal will have no effect on your
> testing and
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:20:32PM +0100, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> People on the threads said that they simply want to initialize an empty
> list [] by a desire to avoid the None scheme.
>
> I would rather solve those kind of issues than help to squeeze
> complicated logic into default
On 31.10.21 12:34, Chris Angelico wrote:
Google's smarter than that. I've searched for symbols before and found
plenty of good results. For instance, I can search for information
about the @ sign before a function, or independently, for a @ b, and
get information about decorators or matrix
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 9:24 PM Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
> Actually, the "defer:"-syntax is really readable and searchable compared to
> the cryptic comparison operator used in the proposal. Just thinking towards
> "googleability".
>
Google's smarter than that. I've searched for symbols before
Actually, the "defer:"-syntax is really readable and searchable compared
to the cryptic comparison operator used in the proposal. Just thinking
towards "googleability".
Furthermore, the concept is even more general than parameter definition
of functions and methods. I guess a lot of people
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 10:11 AM Chris Angelico
> Not sure I understand. Your example was something like:
>
> def fn2(thing):
> a, b = 13, 21
> x = 5
> print("Thing is:", thing)
>
> def f(x=defer: a + b):
> a, b = 3, 5
> fn2(defer: x)
> return x
>
> So inside f(), "defer: a
