On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:47 PM Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.chammas@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is disingenuous, I think.  Can this raise an AttributeError?
>     spam?.eggs?.bacon
> Of course it can! And this is exactly the pattern used in many examples in
> the PEP and the discussion. So the PEP would create a situation where code
> will raise AttributeError in a slightly—and subtly—different set of
> circumstances than plain attribute access will.
 
    food = spam?.eggs?.bacon
Can be rewritten as:
    food = spam
    if spam is not None and spam.eggs is not None:
        food = spam.eggs.bacon
They both behave identically, no? Maybe I missed the point David was trying to make.

No, you illustrate it perfectly! I had to stare at your translation for a while to decide if it was really identical to the proposed `spam?.eggs?.bacon`.  The fact I have to think so hard makes the syntax feel non-obvious.  

Plus, there's the fact that your best effort at translating the proposed syntax is WRONG.  Even a strong proponent cannot explain the behavior on a first try.  And indeed, it behaves subtly different from plain attribute access in where it raises AttributeError.

>>> spam = SimpleNamespace()
>>> spam.eggs = None
>>> spam.eggs.bacon
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'bacon'

>>> # spam?.eggs?.bacon
>>> # Should be: None

>>> "Translation" does something different
>>> food = spam
>>> if spam is not None and spam.eggs is not None:
...     food = spam.eggs.bacon
>>> food
namespace(eggs=None)


--
Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.