What you are describing is very, very dissimilar to currying. It's simply multi-argument functions with a different call syntax. Moreover, this hypothetical syntax would make no sense at all for 99% of the functions I write or call. There are a very small number of functions where a conceivable benefit night occur... And almost all of those are already covered by operators like `in` and `+`. It's not even close to worthwhile to have special syntax for rare cases. On Mon, Oct 18, 2021, 4:28 PM Mathew Elman <mathew.elman@ocado.com> wrote:
Still, I don't want Python to try to be Cobol.
I agree, I don't want Python to try and be Cobol, but that doesn't mean there aren't things to learn from Cobol regarding this, if this indeed something found there - I can't comment on that.
I think the intellectual argument for "English syntax" failed, notwithstanding installed base.
I see this argument used for python in this list (and in the wild) a lot i.e. that it should be readable in English. I am not saying that this is the be-all-end-all of python but it does matter. Also, this being syntax for defining OO curried functions, achieves the goal of more English like syntax while introducing a standard for curried functions in Python - which are of a lot of value in many situations, but usually require nasty syntax. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/FCPD3K... Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/