On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:54:18PM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > This proposal doesn't say anything about reversing the decision made all > those years ago to bundle all positional arguments in a subscript into a > single positional parameter. What's done is done, that's not going to > change.
Sorry, I was referring to the proposal that inspired this thread, to add keyword arguments to subscripting. There's an actual concrete use-case for adding this, specifically for typing annotations, and I cannot help but feel that this thread is derailing the conversation to something that has not been requested by anyone actually affected by it. I may have allowed my frustration to run ahead of me, sorry. There is a tonne of code that relies on subscripting positional arguments to be bundled into a single parameter. Even if we agreed that this was suboptimal, and I don't because I don't know the rationale for doing it in the first place, I would be very surprised if the Steering Council gave the go-ahead to a major disruption and complication to the language just for the sake of making subscript dunders like other functions. Things would be different if, say, numpy or pandas or other heavy users of subscripting said "we want the short term churn and pain for long term benefit". But unless that happens, I feel this is just a case of piggy-backing a large, disruptive change of minimal benefit onto a a small, focused change, which tends to ruin the chances of the small change. So please excuse my frustration, I will try to be less grumpy about it. -- Steven _______________________________________________ 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/YV4IBLMGE7DI3IJJFOVJOB7MDK7ZPGEW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
