data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f8ec/0f8eca326d99e0699073a022a66a77b162e23683" alt=""
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:10 PM David Mertz, Ph.D. <david.mertz@gmail.com> wrote:
Easy! Look at EVERY Python function that uses a sentinel. They all get a little bit worse under your proposal.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021, 9:54 PM Chris Angelico
An obvious reason to oppose it is that it is a much worse way of writing an existing sentinel check. This is what I want to see an example of.
They do? Please go into more detail. Please explain how this becomes worse: def f(a:Optional[List]=None): if a is None: a = [] ... # use a # becoming def f(a:List=>[]): ... # use a The hyperbolic assertion that EVERY function that uses a sentinel will get worse is clearly false, since not every function would be rewritten in this way. But even if every function that gets rewritten is worse, you haven't shown how that's the case. Please. I am BEGGING you for actual arguments here. I want something that I can usefully respond to. Why do we have to go round and round and round with nothing?? ChrisA