RetroSearch Browse

Fri Dec 1 12:52:41 EST 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151008.html

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Right, I was clearly misinterpreting the wording in the PEP.  It's a bit
ambiguous and should probably make explicit that "evaluate the function"
isn't just the common vernacular for "call the function".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171201/ad54e5c6/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151008.html below:

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