Hello, On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 21:36:25 -0800 Guido van Rossum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > but I think it'd probably be > > better to use similar syntax to C#, Java, and Javascript instead, > > and use () -> [12] or () => 12... > > > > Agreed. I'd prefer the JavaScript solution, since -> already has a > different meaning in Python return *type*. We could use -> to simplify > typing.Callable, and => to simplify lambda. Great to hear there's no desire to stray away from JavaScript just for the purpose of being different. I myself would never propose to take any bad ideas from JS, but in some areas, it now leads. And for wider context, it's the same idea with (informal so far) proposal to use "const" for defining *block-local* immutable variables, and "let" for *block-local* mutable vars. This isn't a bad choice on its own, but also matches what JavaScript ended up to have, and would help avoid confusion in wider programming language context. (And yes, that use of "let" does not match its use in pure-functional languages, but JS/Python are different beasts than pure-functional languages). [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ 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/ETCIFVK7M64KFZIKHM3RCT4YLSJBEBM2/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
