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

Steven D'Aprano steve at pearwood.info
Fri Dec 1 21:01:39 EST 2017

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 08:24:05AM -0500, 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,

Yes I am. That's why I asked.

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.

Given that neither your post (which I replied to) nor the post you were replying to mentioned anything about function?() syntax, perhaps I might be forgiven for having no idea what you were talking about?

The PEP only mentions function?() as a rejected idea, do I don't know why we're even talking about it. The PEP is deferred, with considerable opposition and luke-warm support, even the PEP author has said he's not going to push for it, and we're arguing about a pedantic point related to a part of the PEP which is rejected...

:-)

-- Steve

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list