RetroSearch Browse

Fri Dec 1 21:01:39 EST 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151012.html

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:24:05AM -0500, 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,

Yes I am. That's why I asked.

> 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.

Given that neither your post (which I replied to) nor the post you were 
replying to mentioned anything about function?() syntax, perhaps I might 
be forgiven for having no idea what you were talking about?

The PEP only mentions function?() as a rejected idea, do I don't know 
why we're even talking about it. The PEP is deferred, with considerable 
opposition and luke-warm support, even the PEP author has said he's not 
going to push for it, and we're arguing about a pedantic point related 
to a part of the PEP which is rejected...

:-)

-- 
Steve

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-December/151012.html below:

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