On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 10:07 AM Paul Moore firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 22:53, Chris Angelico email@example.com wrote:
Most of that is a *massive* YAGNI as regards function default arguments. We do not need parallel execution just to figure out the length of a list passed as a previous parameter. So you've just added weight to my argument that a generic "delayed" feature is a completely separate proposal, nothing whatsoever to do with PEP 671.
If we concede that delayed expressions are a separate proposal, would you be willing to address the other issues that people have raised? At this point, it seems like the "deferred expressions" debate is distracting everyone from all of the *other* points made by people with reservations about the proposal, which basically come down to "the benefit is limited, and the costs are too high to justify the feature". So far, the responses I've seen to that point mostly seem to come down to "I don't agree, I think the costs are small and the benefits are sufficient". That's not addressing the objections, it's just agreeing to differ¹.
Part of the problem is that it is really REALLY hard to figure out what the actual objections are. I asked, and the one clear answer I got was one subjective opinion that the cognitive load exceeded the benefit. Great! That's one person's concern. I've responded to that by clarifying parts of the cognitive load problem, and that's about as far as that can go.
But if there's nothing more specific than that, what do you want me to respond to? How can I address the objections if the objections are as vague as you're describing?
At a minimum, the PEP should state the objections fairly, and note that the PEP author disagrees. A PEP isn't a sales pitch, it's a summary of the discussions - so it absolutely should mention that there's been significant opposition to the proposal, which did not get resolved, if that's the reality.
Yes, and "significant opposition" doesn't just mean "I don't like this". There's nothing to respond to in that.
(Plus, there's significant belligerent support for the proposal, which is even harder to handle.)