Hi David and Paul Thank you both for your contributions, and for starting a new thread.
David, you wrote > The need addressed by PEP 505 is real; I completely agree. My view is that with PEP 505 as it it, the problem is better than the solution. But all the same, something can be done to improve matters. > Moreover, the actual > legitimate purpose served by the PEP 505 syntax is easily served by existing > Python simply by using a wrapper class. I'm with you here also. First explore solving the problem using existing syntax. If nothing else, it helps us understand the problem. There's one area where I find attraction in a new syntax. The ?? operator is well described, I think, as a None-aware 'or'. But not in the name '??'. We all understand val1 = EXP1 or EXP2 So how about val2 = EXP1 or-if-None EXP2 with 'or-if-None' being a new language keyword! > (1) Much more explicit > (2) Requires no change in syntax > (3) Will not be a bug magnet > (4) [Fewer, clear] semantic traps These are all good goals. And (2) makes exploration much easier. > The API that could be useful might be something like this: I have some different ideas, which I'll post later (to this thread, if you don't mind). Paul, you wrote > I would be very interested to hear discussion of the pros and cons of > adding new syntax to the language as per PEP 505 in comparison to a > solution like this (ultimately more fleshed out and "production > quality") rather than comparisons PEP 505 to raw "roll your own" > Python code. I like that approach. I find exploration using Python modules to be more open (democratic?) than syntax changes that require building a new executable. Once again, thank you both for starting at the problem and pointing in a different direction. -- Jonathan _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/