I'm a bit confused as to why folks are making pronouncements about their support for this PEP before it's even finished, but, oh well.
As for what seems like one major issue: Yes, this is a kind of "deferred" evaluation, but it is not a general purpose one, and that, I think, is the strength of the proposal, it's small and specific, and, most importantly, the scope in which the expression will be evaluated is clear and simple. In contrast, a general deferred object would, to me, be really confusing about what scope it would get evaluated in -- I can't even imagine how I would do that -- how the heck am I supposed to know what names will be available in some function scope I pass this thing into??? Also, this would only allow a single expression, not an arbitrary amount of code -- if we're going to have some sort of "deferred object" -- folks will very soon want more than that, and want full deferred function evaluation. So that really is a whole other kettle of fish, and should be considered entirely separately. As for inspect -- yes, it would be great for these late-evaluated defaults to have a good representation there, but I can only see that as opening the door to more featureful deferred object, certainly not closing it. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, PhD (Chris) Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________ 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/DYH5LZ3Z6CPYDO7CR5OZRQXSSAE7VDD3/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
