[Python-ideas] Re: PEP 671 (late-bound arg defaults), next round of discussion!

2021-12-02 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:18 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 defaults*

[Python-ideas] Re: PEP 637 - support for indexing with keyword arguments (Was: Re: PEP 9999 (provisional): ...)

2020-09-26 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 9:35 PM David Mertz wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 12:50 AM Stefano Borini > wrote: >> >> Other use cases are certainly allowed, but to me, something like >> >> a[1, 2, unit="meters"] >> a[1, 2, unit="meters"] = 3 >> >> makes me feel uncomfortable, although I might

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

2018-07-26 Thread Nicholas Cole
The curious thing about PEP 505 as far as I can see is that it introduces a new piece of syntax -- and for many people (to judge from the reactions here) a controversial piece of syntax -- to solve what seems to be a rather specific problem. The use-case that seems most discussed is unpacking

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

2018-07-23 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:37 PM Mark E. Haase wrote: >> What does a scan through the existing core library say? > > > Please read the PEP before you shoot it down. It answers this _exact_ > question. My apologies. I'd missed the line where it says the examples were taken from the core

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

2018-07-23 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:08 AM Grégory Lielens wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 8:24:45 AM UTC+2, Nicholas Cole wrote: > >> And that leads to a simple question: how many times does this actually >> occur in real-world by python code? -- i.e. how many

Re: [Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

2018-07-23 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:59:20AM +0200, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > You're back at "since we have X that justifies the addition of Y" [1] > > and AFAICT that's the only argument you have provided so far in a 100+ > > messages