Hello,
For consistency with the current API, I’d suggest an empty tuple.
arr[] # arr.__setitem__(())
arr[1] # arr.__setitem__(1) (could be the only exception)
arr[1, 2] # arr.__setitem__((1, 2)) # NOT a.__setitem__(1, 2), note the missing
parantheses
arr[*a, **kw] # arr.__setitem__(a, **kw),
I agree with Stephan's suggestion of having no default value for positional
indices, and letting the user supply it.
It seems I replied badly to the mail on the python-ideas list, and my
response ended up as a separate thread, at
This PEP also opens the possibility of allowing a[] with nothing in the
getitem. Has that been considered?
Aaron Meurer
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 21:41 -0700, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stefano Borini <
> >
On Wed, 2020-09-23 at 21:41 -0700, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stefano Borini <
> stefano.bor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> Hi Stefano -- thanks for pushing this proposal forward! I am sure
> that
> support for keyword indexing will be very welcome in the scientific
>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:22 PM Stefano Borini
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
>
>
> I would like to know your opinion on how to address a specific need of
>
>
> the new PEP 637:
>
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/pep-0637.txt
>
>
>
>
>
> Such PEP would make a syntax like the
Dear all,
I would like to know your opinion on how to address a specific need of
the new PEP 637:
https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/pep-0637.txt
Such PEP would make a syntax like the following valid
obj[2, x=23]
obj[2, 4, x=23]
Which would resolve to a call in the form
