On Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 11:03 Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Todd wrote: > > Only Jonathan seems to want to do it differently. We are trying to find >> out exactly why he prefers this approach. So far the only advantage I have >> seen is that it is easier to experiment with. >> > > I think it's good to make experiments before making a decision. That's > where I'd like us to do next. Let's learn from shared experience. > Nobody is saying that experimentation is bad, only that the final implementation doesn't need to be exactly the same as the experiment. > By the way, using > >>> d[o(1, 2, a=3, b=4)] > for a suitable 'o' and item function decorator has I believe all the > capabilities of any scheme proposed (for a suitable 'o' and decorator). > It has the same capabilities, the question is whether it has any additional abilities that would justify the added complexity. We have a perfectly good way of handling keywords, so it is up to you to explain why we shouldn't use it. I'd rather make my case by doing experiments using various values of 'o' > (and the associated function decorator). > If this is going to be accepted you need to be able to articulate why your approach is superior to the one everyone else supports. At the very least this will require a pep, and the pep will need to explain this. And I am not sure what you expect an experiment to show that can't be seen right now.
_______________________________________________ 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/RL5D47RTFXI7L4PHT6YSSLQHC7FDQYGN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
