RetroSearch Browse

Fri Dec 1 08:24:05 EST 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151002.html

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.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151002.html below:

[Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?