Re: [Python-ideas] if we were to ever shorten `A if A else B` (was: PEP 505: None-aware operators)
Coming from the @ side (I was strong +1 on this), I have troubles seeing the real benefits from ?? (And even more from associates): did we really have long and complex expressions where the compactness of an operator would help? Operators are inherently obscure (except for those that are learnt in elementary school), but they help when you combine multiple operators and benefit from their precedence rules. There you can benefit from them, even if explicit it's better than implicit... It was the case for @, and even with proofs of long formulas, and a history of matrix algebra from hundreds of years before computing science, the resistance was strong: a majority of non-numpy users resisted it, saying a function matmul(A,B) was good enough and A@B would bring nothing. It was eventually accepted, 7 or so years after the initial proposal, through another PEP, when relative weight of numpy community was probably larger. So i'd like to see examples of long expressions that would really benefit groin using an very specific operator. At this point, the explicitness of "a if a is not None else []" wins, by a long shot...___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] if we were to ever shorten `A if A else B` (was: PEP 505: None-aware operators)
> my vote would go to `A otherwise B` since it's unambiguous, the case you care > about the state of comes first, and it doesn't trip your brain up looking > for 'if'. :) And I’d hope “otherwise” is a rare variable name :-) - CHB > > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] if we were to ever shorten `A if A else B` (was: PEP 505: None-aware operators)
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 14:29 Steve Dower wrote: > [SNIP] > > * "We could have 'else', we don't need '??'" > > This is the "a else 'default'" rather than "a ?? 'default'" proposal, > which I do like the look of, but I think it will simultaneously mess > with operator precedence and also force me to search for the 'if' that > we actually need to be comparing "(a else 'default')" vs. "a ?? > 'default'":: > > x = a if b else c else d > x = a if (b else c) else d > x = a if b else (c else d) > The searching for the 'if' also throws me with this proposal. I think someone else proposed `A unless B` but I always prefer knowing upfront what I'm working with, not later by having to read farther along. Personally, if the `A?? B` is the part people like but hate the syntax then my vote would go to `A otherwise B` since it's unambiguous, the case you care about the state of comes first, and it doesn't trip your brain up looking for 'if'. :) ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
