On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 12:19, Eric V. Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/20/2020 7:00 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:03:50AM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > >> Guys, is it really worth saving a few hits on the auto-complete key > >> by adding even more mysterious twists to the existing Python function > >> call syntax ? > >> > >> The current version already strikes me as way too complex. > >> It's by far the most complex piece of grammar we have in Python: > > (I think you pasted the typedarglist rules twice.) > > > > Now that Python is moving to a PEG parser, could it be simplified? > > > > Might we get sequence-unpacking parameters back again? > > > > > > # Legal in Python 2, illegal in Python 3. > > py> def func(a, (b, c), d): > > ... print a, b, c, d > > ... > > py> func(1, "ab", 3) > > 1 a b 3 > > > > > > I know that was a feature that got removed only because it was hard to > > specify in the grammer, even though it was used by lots of people. > > See PEP 3113, which doesn't mention parsing. My understanding is that it > was the introspection problem that drove this. > > And on very rare occasions, I really miss this feature. > I migrated a lot of code to Python 3 recently and I really miss this feature in lambdas: sorted(users, key=lambda u: (u[1].lower(), u[0])) is IMO much uglier than sorted(users, key=lambda (id, name): (name.lower(), id)) -- Ivan
_______________________________________________ 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/2L4QRUUESBPKYEJF4J4VN7TV3IVBDBER/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
