On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:35 AM Steven D'Aprano firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 12:01:55AM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
Oh but Steven, Steven, Steven, how can you pass up an opportunity to reignite the fires of "pass by value" and "pass by reference"? This is CLEARLY the way to represent pass-by-reference where the reference is to a mythical value...
Oh lord, for a second there I read that in the exact tones of Ranting Rick's posts.
Time to step away from the computer, I think.
Haha, that was the kind of thing I was parodying :)
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:54 AM David Mertz email@example.com wrote:
Hmmm... I disagree with Chris.
I'm definitely -1 on a magic dangling 'foo=' after variable names. And something less than -1 on the even more magic "Lisp symbol that isn't a symbol" ':foo'.
Those are just ugly and mysterious.
However, I don't HATE the "mode switch" use of '*' or '**' in function calls. I've certainly written plenty of code where I use the same variable name in the calling scope as I bind in the call. Moreover, function *definitions* have an an analogous mode switch with an isolated '*'.
It sounds to me like there's a lot of weak support or weak opposition, with some of it spread between the proposal itself and the individual spellings.
Rodrigo, it may be time to start thinking about writing a PEP. If the Steering Council approves, I would be willing to be a (non-core-dev) sponsor; alternatively, there may be others who'd be willing to sponsor it. A PEP will gather all the different syntax options and the arguments for/against each, and will mean we're not going round and round on the same discussion points all the times.