On 4/17/2020 12:28 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 1:54 AM David Mertz firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
I've been around for a while, and I can't imagine that any of these proposals would be accepted (but I've been accused of having a bad imagination). I'm saying that not to dissuade anyone from writing a PEP: far from it. I think it would be useful to have this on paper and accepted or rejected, either way. I'm saying this to set expectations: a PEP is a ton of work, and it can be disheartening to put in so much work for something that is rejected.
So, I'd be willing to sponsor such a PEP, but I'd be arguing that it get rejected.
And I say this as someone who has maybe 20 hours of work left on a PEP of my own that I think has less than a 50% chance of success. I already probably have 10 to 15 hours invested in it already.