On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:47 PM Dominik Vilsmeier <dominik.vilsme...@gmx.de>
wrote:
>
> On 16.04.20 22:28, Alex Hall wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 10:13 PM Kyle Stanley <aeros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dominik Vilsmeier wrote:
>> > I'm not sure if this is doable from the compiler perspective, but what
>> > about allowing tuples after `**` unpacking:
>> >
>> > requests.post(url, **(data, params))
>> >
>> > # similar to
>> > requests.post(url, data=data, params=params)
>>
>> +1. I can see the practical utility of the feature, but was strongly
>> against the
>> other syntax proposals so far. IMO, the above alternative does a great
>> job of
>> using an existing feature, and I think it would be rather easy to explain
>> how
>> it works.
>>
>
> If we go in that direction, I'd prefer curly braces instead so that it's
> more reminiscient of a dict instead of a tuple, although technically it
> will look like a set literal.
>
> Do you intend this "shortcut" syntax to also work in other contexts?
> Because indeed if it looks like a set literal it would be confusing if it
> emerges as a dict.
>
My intended semantics are the same as yours, just with different brackets.
Of your proposal I could equally say that it looks like a tuple literal and
it would be confusing if it emerges as a dict.
> {*, foo, bar}
>
> This looks like someone forgot an iterable after the `*`.
>
I'm not sure how that can be an issue unless someone is not sure whether
the code they're looking at runs without a syntax error.
> {**, foo, bar}
>
> This resembles **kwargs but using it to unpack keyword arguments it looks
> weird: `func(**{**, foo, bar})`.
>
In that special case the inner ** can be optional, and then it just looks
like my variation of your proposal.
Or we can have two similar looking syntaxes:
{**, foo, bar}
func(**, foo, bar)
If you're familiar with one of them then the other should become naturally
intuitive. The function call syntax is essentially the earlier proposal in
this thread, just with two stars.
{:, foo, bar}
> {{ foo, bar }}
>
> This is already valid syntax and attempts to store a set inside another
> set.
>
Your quoting is a bit weird, what about the {:, foo, bar} option?
Your proposal `requests.post(url, **(data, params))` is also valid syntax,
and has some support, so I was taking that as precedent. Both are
guaranteed to fail at runtime under current semantics.
> If at all, I'd prefer something like {:foo, :bar}.
>
I like that too, but it was originally proposed in the old thread so I'm
guessing it's not popular enough.
> But anyway this takes the proposal in a different direction.
>
I think a productive discussion about this topic necessarily has to at
least keep dict literals in mind and consider them as a possible way to
achieve the goal.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/UOUXDQKCBR26EPGKP27QYE754MDHWBS2/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
