> Yeah, yeah. I know it's alpha software I wrote two nights ago, and slightly
> patched 5 minutes before that post. You fixed those concerns; I'll happily
> take PRs on fixing them better.
PRs? Nope. I don't think it's possible to do this with correct
semantics without language support.
With PEP 505, I could write this:
>>> print(spam?.nil?.nil?.nil?.nil)
None
Can you do that with your proxy?
Oh yeah. You are right! Thank you.
That's a bug in my proxy too. I'll figure out how to fix it in 0.1.2 soon. This is early alpha, and the things you're noting are valuable bug reports. But none of this is fundamentally unfixable in a library, nor even especially difficult.
I doubt I'll ever even use my own software. It's just a proof-of-concept that we can achieve the ACTUAL purpose of PEP 505 with no language changes. I don't very often have a need to solve the problem PEP 505 does... even though I very often work in the very domain it is intended to address (semi-structured nested data). Even if the PEP could be a little bit more elegant for a very few circumstances, it's just not anywhere close to deserving syntax... especially not syntax that even proponents tend to misunderstand the semantics of.
--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.