> *PEP 671: Syntax for late-bound function argument defaults* > > Questions, for you all: > > 1) If this feature existed in Python 3.11 exactly as described, would > you use it?
Yes > 2) Independently: Is the syntactic distinction between "=" and "=>" a > cognitive burden? No, but it will be cognitive burden with shorthand lambda proposed syntax, for example def x(a: (b, c)=>c): is annotation for a (b, c) or maybe (b, c)=>c > (It's absolutely valid to say "yes" and "yes", and feel free to say > which of those pulls is the stronger one.) > > 3) If "yes" to question 1, would you use it for any/all of (a) mutable > defaults, (b) referencing things that might have changed, (c) > referencing other arguments, (d) something else? mostly (a), sometimes (c) > 4) If "no" to question 1, is there some other spelling or other small > change that WOULD mean you would use it? (Some examples in the PEP.) While I answered yes to question 1, personally I would prefer not adding new syntax, but switching completly to late defaults (requiring future import for some next versions) > 5) Do you know how to compile CPython from source, and would you be > willing to try this out? Please? :) Don't have enough time. _______________________________________________ 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/EAUYTHGRRA337IEM4AZBVBFPIW2SLSPT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
