data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abc12/abc12520d7ab3316ea400a00f51f03e9133f9fe1" alt=""
On 17/04/2020 19:21, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
On Apr 17, 2020, at 01:58, Steven D'Aprano<steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:21:05PM -0700, Andrew Barnert via Python-ideas wrote:
But I don’t see why that rules out the “bare colon” form that I and someone else apparently both proposed in separate sub threads of this thread: { :a, "b": x, :c } as shorthand for: { "a": a, "b": x, "c": c }
I did a double-take reading that, because I visually parsed it as:
{ :a, "b": x, :c }
and couldn't work out what was going on.
After saving this draft, closing the email, then reopening it, I read the proposed dict the same way. So I don't think it was just a momentary glitch. I honestly think, as you suggested at the end, that this may be just you. You’ve had similar reactions to other syntax that nobody else replicated, and I think that’s happening again here.
It's not just Steven. After dusting my monitor to remove flyspecs, I still couldn't find a natural way of reading that example. I didn't visually parse it quite the same, but the excess of punctuation still encourage me to completely miss the '"b": x' part being a unit. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd