On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 5:02 PM Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnbull@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Angelico writes:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 8:07 PM Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnbull@gmail.com> wrote:
This isn't about your proposal, it's about more general syntax. Not everything being discussed is about your proposal, and I suspect one reason you have trouble figuring out what other people are talking about is that you persistently try to force everything into that context.
Yes, it's silly of me to think of everything in a PEP 671 thread as if it's about argument defaults. Carrying on.
Silly, no, I would say "human", but either way I believe it is impeding *your* understanding, and almost nobody else's.
If you're not in *this* subthread to understand alternative ideas (again, *there is nothing wrong with ending this subthread here*), I have nothing further to say in it. If you are, you need to calm down and start asking questions that specify what you want to know rather than adding a question mark to a grunt as in
By "alternative ideas", do you mean "alternative ways to implement argument defaults", or "completely different ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with argument defaults"? Because if it's the latter, please, change the subject line so it isn't confusing. We can have all manner of completely independent discussions happening at once, and there's no problem. But if you mean "alternative ways to implement argument defaults (and a bunch of other stuff too)", which is what seemed to be the case when people said that PEP 671 should be rescinded in favour of a more generic system, is it really wrong of me to try to think of how this affects PEP 671? Are you, or are you not, asking me to change or retract PEP 671? Does your proposal in any way reflect upon argument defaults? Genuine question. I am utterly, completely, Fblthp-level lost here. ChrisA