On Sep 10, 2016 5:21 PM, "David Mertz" <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:

I find the '?.' syntax very ugly, much more so in the examples of chained attributes.

A much better way to handle the use case is to wrap objects in a class that gives this "propagating None" behavior with plain attribute access. A nice implementation was presented in this thread.

On Sep 10, 2016 3:16 PM, "Random832" <random832@fastmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, at 13:26, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> The way I recall it, we arrived at the perfect syntax (using ?) and
> semantics. The issue was purely strong hesitation about whether
> sprinkling ? all over your code is too ugly for Python

I think that if there's "strong hesitation" about something being "too
ugly" it can't really be described as "the perfect syntax". IIRC there
were a couple alternatives being discussed that would have reduced the
number of question marks to one [or one per object which might be None].
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/