On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 at 13:44, David Mertz, Ph.D. <david.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022, 9:21 PM Rob Cliffe >> >> Sorry again, but IMO discussing any model except one where late-bound >> defaults are evaluated at function call time is just adding FUD. > > > It's definitely rude to repeatedly state that anyone who's opinion is > different from yours is "adding FUD" and doesn't belong in the thread. > > Stephen, and Steven, and Paul, and I all perfectly well understand what > "evaluated at function call time" means. > > It's a way to spell `if arg is sentinel: arg = ...` using slightly fewer > characters, and moving an expression from the body to the signature. > > I won't stoop to saying that advocating what you do is FUD. I can even > understand why someone would want that in Python. > > I'm still -1 because I don't think the purpose alone is close to worth the > cost of new syntax... And especially not using sigils that are confusing to > read in code. > > The topic of "late binding in function signatures" simply isn't *orthogonal* > to "late binding in the general sense." Yes, they are distinct, but very > closely adjacent.
Every argument you've just made is ALSO an argument against function defaults in general. Do you think that they aren't worth syntax either? 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/EVLMB6GUZUK2LB4UXRITUSWDKYDTM3D7/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
