On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:24:05AM -0500, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 05:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > I'm more confused than ever. You seem to be arguing that Python > > functions CAN short-circuit their arguments and avoid evaluating them. > > Is that the case? > > > If this is merely about when the name "function" is looked up, then I > > don't see why that's relevant to the PEP. > > > > What am I missing? > > You're completely missing the context of the discussion,
Yes I am. That's why I asked. > which was the > supposed reason that a *new* function call operator, with the proposed > syntax function?(args), that would short-circuit (based on the > 'function' being None) could not be implemented. Given that neither your post (which I replied to) nor the post you were replying to mentioned anything about function?() syntax, perhaps I might be forgiven for having no idea what you were talking about? The PEP only mentions function?() as a rejected idea, do I don't know why we're even talking about it. The PEP is deferred, with considerable opposition and luke-warm support, even the PEP author has said he's not going to push for it, and we're arguing about a pedantic point related to a part of the PEP which is rejected... :-) -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
