On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 6:11 PM Abe Dillon <abedil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem here is not whether it's explicit. It's about Readability and
> conciseness. Using symbols in place of words almost always harms
> readability in favor of conciseness.
>
> value = person.name if person.name else person
>
> almost reads like english (aside from being a weird and totally uncommon
> use case)
>
> value = person?.name
>
> Is a huge step towards the concise illegible soup of symbols that Perl is
> famous for. It's a huge No from me.
>
The two statements you wrote are not the same. The first statement will
error out if person is None. The proposed None-aware operators are
specifically designed to handle variables that may be None.
The first statement should instead read:
value = person.name if person is not None else person
That's what `value = person?.name` means.
As others have pointed out, I suppose the fact that multiple people have
messed up the meaning of the proposed operators is concerning. Perhaps the
PEP could be improved by adding some dead simple examples of each operator
and an equivalent statement that doesn't use the operator, to better
illustrate their meaning. But I gather that will do little in the way of
addressing some of the stronger objections raised here.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
