On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:30 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 12:26:33PM +0000, Matt del Valle wrote:
>
> > If anything I think
> > the symmetry between the proposed '=>' syntax and the arrow syntax for
> > lambdas in other languages (potentially even in python in the future)
> > reduces the cognitive burden significantly, given the there is an
> > equivalent symmetry with their semantics (in both cases the code is being
> > evaluated later when something is called).
>
> It may be that behind the scenes the default expression is stored as a
> callable function which the interpreter calls. (I believe that list
> comprehensions do something similar.) But that's an implementation
> detail that can change: it might just as well store the source code as a
> string, and pass it to eval().
In my reference implementation, there is no object that stores it;
it's simply part of the function. A good parallel is the if/else
expression:
x = float("inf") if z == 0 else y/z
Is there an object that represents the if/else expression (or the
deferred "y/z" part)? No, although it could be implemented that way if
you chose:
x = iff(z == 0, lambda: y/z, lambda: float("inf"))
But just because you CAN use a function to simulate this behaviour,
that doesn't mean that it's inherently a function.
So I agree with Steve that the parallel is quite weak. That said,
though, I still like the arrow notation, not because of any parallel
with a lambda function, but because of the parallel with assignment.
(And hey. You're allowed to think of things in any way you like. I'm
not forcing you to interpret everything using the same justifications
I do.)
> Or use some other mechanism that I'm not clever enough to think of, so I
> shall just call "deepest black magic".
Remind me some time to use some slightly shallower black magic.
> There is no *neccessity* for the late-bound default to be a hidden
> function, and it is certainly not part of the semantics of late-bound
> defaults. Just the implementation.
>
> If you disagree, and still think that the symmetry is powerful enough to
> use the same syntax for both lambdas and default arguments, well, how
> about if we *literally* do that?
>
> def function(spam=expression, # regular default
> lambda eggs: expression, # late-bound default
> )
>
> Heh, perhaps the symmetry is not that strong after all :-)
That..... is hilariously confusing. I like it. Just not EVER in the language :)
ChrisA
_______________________________________________
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/AQWFM7KYVMLBD6FH7XDYLMQVUBZOJGNW/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
