@CHB: Can you be a bit more careful with your trimming. You've removed
the attribution of the poster. What I wrote was just the reply starting
from the "-1" line.
On 2020-07-21 16:37, Christopher Barker wrote:
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage, but:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:31 AM
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to engage, but:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:31 AM MRAB wrote:
> terms of simplification would be not creating `fun` as a keyword and
> allowing developers to create functions in Python without a keyword (like
> in C-family). That way, a new proposal would be
On 2020-07-21 01:25, Thiago Carvalho D'Ávila wrote:
Chris Angelico, you have a good point. An alternative solution that would
achieve similar or even better results in terms of simplification would be not
creating `fun` as a keyword and allowing developers to create functions in
Python
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:34 AM Thiago Carvalho D'Ávila
wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico, you have a good point. An alternative solution that would
> achieve similar or even better results in terms of simplification would be
> not creating `fun` as a keyword and allowing developers to create
Actually, Callable is fine the way it is, the chosen name is most fitting and
the generic syntax is slightly difference than how it's done in C/C++ (Known
difference are due to language differences between Python and C/C++)
___
Python-ideas mailing
(The only not unreasonable suggestion in the OP's proposal is to try and
come up with something better than Callable --- we've introduced other
syntax specifically for type annotations, and are likely to do so again.
But **PLEASE** start a new thread for that.)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:37 PM
Chris Angelico, you have a good point. An alternative solution that would
achieve similar or even better results in terms of simplification would be not
creating `fun` as a keyword and allowing developers to create functions in
Python without a keyword (like in C-family). That way, a new
There is absolutely no possibility that this will go anywhere. It breaks
every single Python program written since 1989, with absolutely ZERO new
functionally. Changing the spelling of a few of the most come keywords is a
non-starter.
If you can time travel to 1987 and propose differently spelled
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:10 AM Thiago Carvalho D' Ávila
wrote:
> In order to make this possible the following changes would be needed:
> 1. adding `fun` keyword to method definition (maintaining `def` for backwards
> compatibility);
> 2. adding `fun` built-in type in addition to Callable;
If
