On 2017-12-01 13:24, Random832 wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 05:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> I'm more confused than ever. You seem to be arguing that Python
>> functions CAN short-circuit their arguments and avoid evaluating them.
>> Is that the case?
>
>> If this is merely about when the name "function" is looked up, then I
>> don't see why that's relevant to the PEP.
>>
>> What am I missing?
>
> You're completely missing the context of the discussion, which was the
> supposed reason that a *new* function call operator, with the proposed
> syntax function?(args), that would short-circuit (based on the
> 'function' being None) could not be implemented. The whole thing doesn't
> make sense to me anyway, since a new operator could have its own
> sequence different from the existing one if necessary.
>
The code:
function?(args)
would be equivalent to:
None if function is None else function(args)
where 'function' would be evaluated once.
If function is None, the arguments would not be evaluated.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4