On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 06:29, Lucas Wiman wrote:
>> So rather than proposals for weird magic objects that do weird things
>> as function arguments, I'd much rather see proposals to fix the
>> reported signature, which would largely solve the problem without
>> magic. (Or technically, without
On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 1:07 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> with all the variants of keyword and positional args. Being able to
> say "this function has the same signature as that one, plus it accepts
> consumed_arg" or "same, but without added_arg" would be extremely
> useful, and short of some
On Thu, 28 Jul 2022 at 00:08, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
> Sorry for top posting: I’m on the road.
>
> inspect.signature can help with this.
>
Technically true, and a good basis for a proposal, but try designing a
modified signature and you'll find that it's actually pretty hard.
What I'd like to
Михаил Крупенков:
> Yes, I want that when Void is received in a function parameter it is not
processed:
>
> func(Void) == func() == "default"
Mathew Elman:
> I believe this is a rebirth of a request that has come up many times
before, which is to have something like javascript's `undefined` where
On 27/07/22 5:29 am, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
If you're phishing, I guess worms are useful. *shudder*
I think you need whorms for phishing.
--
Greg
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Mathew Elman writes:
> To answer how this _could_ work, Undefined would be a new NoneType
My example is intended to refer specifically to the alternative
semantics where 'undefined' is not allowed outside of function
prototypes (or other specified contexts, for that matter). The point
of the
Sorry for top posting: I’m on the road.
inspect.signature can help with this.
--
Eric
> On Jul 27, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 22:54, Mathew Elman wrote:
>>
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
Again, I am not pro this idea, just answering the questions
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 22:54, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > Again, I am not pro this idea, just answering the questions you're asking
> > > as I see them :)
> > Yeah. I think you're doing a great job of showing why this is a bad idea :)
>
> I do think the desire to fix the
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 21:54, Mathew Elman mathew.el...@ocado.com wrote:
> > I don't see why you couldn't. I guess what they do depends if any of these
> > have defaults? Which I think they do not in this case, right?
> > If they were non vanilla dictionaries that had a
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 21:54, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> I don't see why you couldn't. I guess what they do depends if any of these
> have defaults? Which I think they do not in this case, right?
> If they were non vanilla dictionaries that had a default e.g.
>
> class SomeDict(dict):
> def
I don't see why you couldn't. I guess what they do depends if any of these have
defaults? Which I think they do not in this case, right?
If they were non vanilla dictionaries that had a default e.g.
class SomeDict(dict):
def __getitem__(self, item=None):
return
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 21:13, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> To answer how this _could_ work, Undefined would be a new NoneType that is
> falsey (just like None) can't be reassigned (just like None) and does
> everything else just like None _except_ that when it is passed as a function
> argument,
To answer how this _could_ work, Undefined would be a new NoneType that is
falsey (just like None) can't be reassigned (just like None) and does
everything else just like None _except_ that when it is passed as a function
argument, the argument name is bound to the default if it has one
13 matches
Mail list logo
