Another idea -- have you considered deferring teaching students about None
until after they've had a chance to learn about writing custom objects and
operator overloading?
None is primarily useful for representing the absence of some value, and
I'm not sure if that's something beginners actually n
actually really exist
while being more broadly useful.
Or I guess we could just remove that restriction: "it feels too magical"
isn't a great objection on my part. Either way, that part of the PEP could
use some more refinement, I think.
-- Michael
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at
>
> I strongly agree with Ka-Ping. '+' is intuitively concatenation not
> merging. The behavior is overwhelmingly more similar to the '|' operator in
> sets (whether or not a user happens to know the historical implementation
> overlap).
I think the behavior proposed in the PEP makes sense whethe
I just want to point out that you don't need permission from anybody to
start a library. I think developing and popularizing a contracts library is
a reasonable goal -- but that's something you can start doing at any time
without waiting for consensus.
And if it gets popular enough, maybe it'll be
Hi -- I'm a new voice here, though I've been lurking for a while now.
How do people feel about removing "??=" and "foo?[bar]" from the PEP and
sticking with just "foo?.bar" and "foo ?? bar"?
Reasons for not implementing "??=":
1. I think the other operators are useful in that they can be chai
