On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 07:47:49AM -, Jeremiah Vivian wrote:
> > 2) Independently: Is the syntactic distinction between "=" and "=>" a
> > cognitive burden?
> No, it isn't much of a cognitive burden.
You say that now, but if you read function definitions that looked
like this:
def
Answering questions:
> 1) If this feature existed in Python 3.11 exactly as described, would
> you use it?
I would definitely use it.
> 2) Independently: Is the syntactic distinction between "=" and "=>" a
> cognitive burden?
No, it isn't much of a cognitive burden.
> 3) If "yes" to question 1,
> On 1 Dec 2021, at 10:16 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
> with some additional information about the reference implementation,
> and some clarifications elsewhere.
>
> *PEP 671: Syntax for late-bound function argument
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:14 PM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Yeah I agree it will look ugly if we use it not
> as a first argument many times in a row but what if there is one or two
> functions in the middle that they are not playing along and don’t have
>
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah I agree it will look ugly if we use it not
as a first argument many times in a row but what if there is one or two
functions in the middle that they are not playing along and don’t have teamwork
ethics, meaning they put the parameter we are interested in as a
I've just updated PEP 671 https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0671/
with some additional information about the reference implementation,
and some clarifications elsewhere.
*PEP 671: Syntax for late-bound function argument defaults*
Questions, for you all:
1) If this feature existed in Python
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 2:17 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I don’t like the fact this is used only as a first parameter. What if
> you want the preceding output to go as a second parameter?
>
>
> in real world situations,
> that's easily the most common form needed.
>
Exactly -- the goal
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 9:09 AM Abdulla Al Kathiri
wrote:
>
> How about using the typing return arrow -> to indicate the return of the
> preceding goes as a first parameter in the function:
> 1 -> add(2)
That's a possibility. The same arrow then means "this function
produces that value" in a
How about using the typing return arrow -> to indicate the return of the
preceding goes as a first parameter in the function:
1 -> add(2)
I don’t like the fact this is used only as a first parameter. What if you want
the preceding output to go as a second parameter?
Abdulla
Sent from my
