Yeah I did say it was a strawman :) On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:17 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:09 PM, אלעזר <elaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I meant something like making it a "__bind__" (just a strawman > suggestion) > > and do the same lookup as foo() does, and using a (wrong) > > functional-programming-inspired syntax > > > > foo 5 () > > > > Such a syntax will have the side benefit of allowing calling print in a > > similar way to Python2, which people seem to love. > > > > print "hello" () > > > > Python has a rule that syntax shouldn't look like grit on Tim's > screen. In this case, it looks like the *absence of* grit, which is > even worse :) You're giving meaning to the abuttal of two tokens, the > first of which must be callable but the second can be anything. And it > creates the scary situation of giving valid-but-useless meaning to > something all too common in Py2 code: > > print "hello" > > This would now create a function that, if called, would print "hello", > but then abandons it without a second thought. So it'd work in 2.7, > fail with an opaque error in 3.3, fail with a more informative error > in 3.5, and silently do nothing in 3.7. No thank you! :) > > ChrisA > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
