On 19/06/2022 04:42, David Mertz, Ph.D. wrote:

On Sat, Jun 18, 2022, 9:21 PM Rob Cliffe

Sorry again, but IMO discussing any model except one where late-bound defaults are evaluated at function call time is just adding FUD.

It's definitely rude to repeatedly state that anyone who's opinion is different from yours is "adding FUD" and doesn't belong in the thread.

I was not talking about people whose opinion was different from mine. I was talking about people who obscured the discussion of a proposal by talking about a different proposal. And that, IMO, would be rude if it were done deliberately, though I accept that it wasn't.

The topic of "late binding in function signatures" simply isn't *orthogonal* to "late binding in the general sense." Yes, they are distinct, but very closely adjacent.

We disagree about that. Please consider the *IMPLEMENTATIONS* of each. I respectfully suggest that you may conclude that they are not so close after all.

PS In my support may I quote from a post from Chris:

[Steven D'Aprano] Chris may choose to reject this generalised lazy evaluation idea, but if
so it needs to go into a Rejected Ideas section. Or he may decide that
actually having a generalised lazy evaluation idea is *brilliant* and
much nicer than making defaults a special case.

[Chris] It's an almost completely orthogonal proposal. I used to have a
reference to it in the PEP but removed it because it was unhelpful.

Rob Cliffe