RetroSearch Browse

Wed Nov 29 12:40:21 EST 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-November/150945.html

I like much of the thinking in Random's approach. But I still think None
isn't quite special enough to warrant it's own syntax.

However, his '(or None: name.strip()[4:].upper())' makes me realize that
what is being asked in all the '?(', '?.', '?[' syntax ideas is a kind of
ternary expression.  Except the ternary isn't based on whether a predicate
holds, but rather on whether an exception occurs (AttributeError, KeyError,
TypeError).  And the fallback in the ternary is always None rather than
being general.

I think we could generalize this to get something both more Pythonic and
more flexible.  E.g.:

    val = name.strip()[4:].upper() except None

This would just be catching all errors, which is perhaps too broad.  But it
*would* allow a fallback other than None:

    val = name.strip()[4:].upper() except -1

I think some syntax could be possible to only "catch" some exceptions and
let others propagate.  Maybe:

    val = name.strip()[4:].upper() except (AttributeError, KeyError): -1

I don't really like throwing a colon in an expression though.  Perhaps some
other word or symbol could work instead.  How does this read:

    val = name.strip()[4:].upper() except -1 in (AttributeError, KeyError)

Where the 'in' clause at the end would be optional, and default to
'Exception'.

I'll note that what this idea DOES NOT get us is:

  val = timeout ?? local_timeout ?? global_timeout

Those values that are "possibly None" don't raise exceptions, so they
wouldn't apply to this syntax.

Yours, David...

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 15:31, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >
> > > I also cc python-dev to see if anybody here is strongly in favor or
> against this inclusion.
> >
> > Put me down for a strong -1.   The proposal would occasionally save a few
> > keystokes but comes at the expense of giving Python a more Perlish look
> > and a more arcane feel.
> >
> > One of the things I like about Python is that I can walk non-programmers
> > through the code and explain what it does.  The examples in PEP 505 look
> > like a step in the wrong direction.  They don't "look like Python" and
> > make me feel like I have to decrypt the code to figure-out what it does.
> >
> >     timeout ?? local_timeout ?? global_timeout
> >     'foo' in (None ?? ['foo', 'bar'])
> >     requested_quantity ?? default_quantity * price
> >     name?.strip()[4:].upper()
> >     user?.first_name.upper()
>
> Since we're looking at different syntax for the ?? operator, I have a
> suggestion for the ?. operator - and related ?[] and ?() that appeared
> in some of the proposals. How about this approach?
>
> Something like (or None: ...) as a syntax block in which any operation
> [lexically within the expression, not within e.g. called functions, so
> it's different from simply catching AttributeError etc, even if that
> could be limited to only catching when the operand is None] on None that
> is not valid for None will yield None instead.
>
> This isn't *entirely* equivalent, but offers finer control.
>
> v = name?.strip()[4:].upper() under the old proposal would be more or
> less equivalent to:
>
> v = name.strip()[4:].upper() if name is not None else None
>
> Whereas, you could get the same result with:
> (or None: name.strip()[4:].upper())
>
> Though that would technically be equivalent to these steps:
> v = name.strip if name is not None else None
> v = v() if v """""
> v = v[4:] """""""
> v = v.upper """""""
> v = v() """""""
>
> The compiler could optimize this case since it knows none of the
> operations are valid on None. This has the advantage of being explicit
> about what scope the modified rules apply to, rather than simply
> implicitly being "to the end of the chain of dot/bracket/call operators"
>
> It could also be extended to apply, without any additional syntax, to
> binary operators (result is None if either operand is None) (or None: a
> + b), for example, could return None if either a or b is none.
>
> [I think I proposed this before with the syntax ?(...), the (or None:
> ...) is just an idea to make it look more like Python.]
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> mertz%40gnosis.cx
>

-- 
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171129/61966757/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-November/150945.html below:

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