My own opinion is that it's limited enough in scope (and probably uncontroversial implementation-wise) that it doesn't need a PEP. Of course other core developers may disagree, so perhaps wait a few days before submitting a PR :-) Regards Antoine. On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:16:53 +0100 Tom Forbes <tom@tomforb.es> wrote:
I would think that would be a great name, it’s more explicit and fits more in with its siblings “lru_cache” and “cached_property”.
Not to imply that there is a consensus to move forward, I would be interested in knowing what the next steps would be if there was. Would this require a PEP to be submitted? Or is it similar enough to existing functionality that it might not require one?
On 27 Apr 2020, at 19:37, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis-xNDA5Wrcr86sTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 09:26:53 -0700 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
Or are you saying that once could be interpreted to mean I cannot do that 2nd def?
That is what I was saying -- that `once`, all by itself, could mean multiple things.
That's a good point. A more explicit spelling would be `@call_once`, what do you think?
(that's also the C++ spelling, incidentally, but I suspect most beginners won't care about that ;-))
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/NYOB46... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/