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