On 17/04/2020 19:21, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
On Apr 17, 2020, at 01:58, Steven D'Aprano<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:21:05PM -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas
wrote:
But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and
someone else apparently both proposed in separate sub threads of this
thread:
{ :a, "b": x, :c }
as shorthand for:
{ "a": a, "b": x, "c": c }
I did a double-take reading that, because I visually parsed it as:
{ :a,
"b":
x, :c
}
and couldn't work out what was going on.
After saving this draft, closing the email, then reopening it, I read
the proposed dict the same way. So I don't think it was just a momentary
glitch.
I honestly think, as you suggested at the end, that this may be just you.
You’ve had similar reactions to other syntax that nobody else replicated, and I
think that’s happening again here.
It's not just Steven. After dusting my monitor to remove flyspecs, I
still couldn't find a natural way of reading that example. I didn't
visually parse it quite the same, but the excess of punctuation still
encourage me to completely miss the '"b": x' part being a unit.
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/7UU4MDSHLYFZ6UEDJBEZU4POL6QGGY45/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
