On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 10:58 AM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 06:32:19AM -0400, David Mertz wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 2:00 AM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Fine. So it takes them an extra day to learn one more operator. Big
> > > deal. It is commonly believed to take ten years to master a field or
> > > language. Amortize that one day over ten years and its virtually
> > > nothing.
> > >
> >
> > This is where being wrong matters. The experience in this thread of most
> > supporters failing to get the semantics right shows that this isn't an
> > extra day to learn.
>
> The difficulty one or two people had in coming up with a correct
> equivalent to none-aware operators on the spur of the moment is simply
> not relevant. Aside from whichever developers implements the feature,
> the rest of us merely *use* it, just as we already use import,
> comprehensions, yield from, operators, class inheritence, and other
> features which are exceedingly difficult to emulate precisely in pure
> Python code.
>
> Even something as simple as the regular dot attribute lookup is
> difficult to emulate precisely. I doubt most people would be able to
> write a pure-Python version of getattr correctly the first time. Or even
> the fifth. I know I wouldn't.
>
> I'm sure that you are fully aware that if this proposal is accepted,
> people will not need to reinvent the wheel by emulating these none-aware
> operators in pure Python, so your repeated argument that (allegedly)
> even the supporters can't implement it correctly is pure FUD. They won't
> have to implement it, that's the point.


+1 to this, though I agree with Raymond's post that perhaps a breather on
language changes would be helpful until some of the recently introduced
features have become more familiar to folks.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to