On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 22:38, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > There's no consensus that this feature is worth the added complexity, or > even what the semantics are. The PEP punts on the semantics, saying that > the behaviour may vary across implementations.
Excuse me? I left one or two things open-ended, where they're bad code and I'm not going to lock the language into supporting them just because the reference implementation happens to be able to, but "punts"? That's a bit much. The semantics are QUITE specific. > There's no consensus on the syntax, which may not matter, the Steering > Council can make the final decision if necessary. But with at least four > options in the PEP it would be good to narrow it down a bit. No soft > keywords have been considered. """Choice of spelling. While this document specifies a single syntax `name=>expression`...""" The PEP specifies *one* option. > In my opinion, there are weaknesses in the PEP: > > - lack of any reference to previous discussions; > > - no attempt to gather feedback from other forums; > > - no review of languages that offer choice of early or late binding; > > - little attempt to justify why this is better than the status quo; the > PEP seems to take the position that it is self-evident that Python > needs this feature, rather than being a balanced document setting out > both pros and cons; > > - little or no attempt in the PEP to answer objections; > > - examples are all chosen to show the feature in the best possible > light, rather than to show both the good and bad; (e.g. no examples > show the parameter with annotations) > > - failure to acknowledge that at least one of the suggested syntaxes > is visually ambiguous with existing syntax. > > E.g. this would be legal with the PEP's second choice of spelling: > > def func(spam, eggs:=(x:=spam)): > > Even if the parser can distinguish the two uses of `:=` there, its > awfully cryptic. In and of itself, that's not necessarily a fatal flaw > (e.g. slicing) but the benefits have to outweigh the negatives, and the > PEP should be a balanced discussion of both. And that's not the recommended syntax anyway. Please, if you're going to criticize the document, *at least* have the decency to check your facts. You are the PRIMARY reason that I gave up pushing this earlier. I am within a very short span of blocking you in my mail client and refusing to respond to your emails, because it feels like a massive waste of my time trying. 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/Z7JKPTKL2DVDLJ6MCZWOHF6NWLKZ56O4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
