[Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators? (original) (raw)
MRAB python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Fri Dec 1 16:00:35 EST 2017
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2017-12-01 13:24, 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, 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. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me anyway, since a new operator could have its own sequence different from the existing one if necessary. The code:
function?(args)
would be equivalent to:
None if function is None else function(args)
where 'function' would be evaluated once.
If function is None, the arguments would not be evaluated.
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] What's the status of PEP 505: None-aware operators?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]