On 11/02/2016 12:32 PM, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
On Nov 02 2016, Zero Piraeus <schesis-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 08:46 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[...] we need to agree on what even the right definition of ?. is. It's
been frighteningly difficult to explain this even on this list, even
though I have a very clear view in my head, and PEP 505 also has the
same semantics and explains well why those are the right semantics.
I think the proposed semantics for ?. are confusing (and the operator
itself dangerous, but more on that later).
If I write something like obj.attr, the failure mode I care about is that
obj has no attribute attr, rather than that obj is specifically None (or
one of a defined group of somewhat Nonelike objects).
Clearly, in such a circumstance, obj is not what I expected it to be,
because I thought it was going to have an attribute attr, and it
doesn't.
That means that you do not need null coalescing operators. They're not
intended for your use-case, and you are not the target audience.
However, it's definitely a point for the confusiness of it all.
I like the idea of null-(coalescing|negation|borrowing|what-have-you), but I
also very much appreciate the keyword approach used in Python. I can already
feel the headache coming on from trying to read and decipher the various ?
accesses...
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
