On 23 July 2018 at 12:39, Grégory Lielens <gregory.liel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe it would help if you mention in which context you will benefit the > most? If the python sub-community related to this context agree "?? and > friends" is a good idea, then it will add weight to the proposal. Else, > probably better to forget it. > > It seems related to JSON, but as I have never used it, it's a wild guess.
This is my impression, as well. It seems like something that's helpful in dealing with unstructured object hierarchies with lots of optional attributes - which is where JSON tends to be used. But given that, I'm really much more interested in seeing the new operators compared against a well-written "JSON object hierarchy traversal" library than against raw Python code. I'll happily agree that traversing JSON-style data in current Python is pretty unpleasant. But I don't honestly think that anyone has explored how far a well-written library can go in making it easy to handle such data (well, I certainly haven't, and I haven't found any particularly good examples on PyPI). And until that's been tried, I think it's premature to propose a syntax change (if it *has* been tried, adding references to the PEP would be useful). Again, this is more about ?. and ?[. I can see general uses for ?? (and its augmented assignment form ??=), but the None-aware attribute and item access operators seem to me to be the most domain-specific aspects of the PEP (as well as being the ugliest IMO ;-)). So comparing against domain-specific libraries rather than against "write your own" raw Python code seems reasonable to me. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
