On Apr 17, 2020, at 13:12, David Mertz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> However, proposals for symbols in Python *do* pop
> up from time to time, so this would perhaps make such a thing harder if
> it ever becomes desired (which is unlikely, but possible).
Sure. It would also conflict with Nick Coghlan’s version of the
conciser-lambdas idea, where `{ :a, :b }` would mean a set of two nullary
lambdas.
And the * mode switch would conflict with the proposal to use * as a special
positional argument meaning “I’m not passing anything here (just as if I’d left
an optional positional off the end, but here I’m doing it in the middle) so use
your default value”.
And I’m sure there have been other proposals for things :value in a dict
display, keyword= in a call, * in a call, etc. could mean that I just don’t
happen to remember.
But unless one of those other proposals are likely to happen, or should happen,
who cares? Assuming one of the proposals in this set of threads has sufficient
traction, it would be silly to say “Let’s not do this thing that people want
because it would make it harder to do a thing they don’t want”.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/DL6OMQDOUGPFKXXDON7LSD6DS5PSD6MF/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
