Chris Angelico writes: > Please explain to me *exactly* what your arguments against the current > proposal are.
No, thank you. They're all in the thread. Managing the thread is your job as proponent. In brief, my issues are introspection, adding syntax, the particular syntax "=>". If you were proposing a general deferred type and special syntax for default arguments, yes, I'd be more sympathetic to a proposal implemented that way, but I don't depend on that for my evaluation of the proposal as too limited to clear the bar for new syntax even if that were the case. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the Pythonicity of your proposal, specifically, I'm not sure why some opponents have talked about "magic". In my opinion, your proposal is perfectly in line with the Zen aphorisms about complexity and ease of understanding implementations. > [T]here's endless mischaracterization and accusation happening. It's not exactly nice to say this since you're the only fish who must swim in this barrel, but you're not innocent of those issues. It's happening on both sides, and you're not responsible for the majority of it. However, a more flexible attitude on your part in *understanding* others' claims would help a lot because you are the central figure here. You say "you're wrong" all too quickly in this thread. David was (to me) surprisingly direct about this, but as the idiom goes, "he's not wrong". Note: understanding != agreement, this thread does not display your normal attitude, and "wrong" is not the other element of a doubleton. With sincere respect, Steve _______________________________________________ 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/HOXPXVPTNFUFIRF4TF4G7PSKJZH2JSHN/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
