
On 12/29/20 12:24 PM, S Pradeep Kumar wrote:
@Alfonso:
That seems like an interesting and feasible idea!
Overall, I'd like to defer this for now since it would be fully backward-compatible. It probably belongs in the future type arithmetic PEP.
Agreed. The existing PEP is already fairly complex. On 12/29/20 12:24 PM, S Pradeep Kumar wrote:
One significant change I've (tentatively) made is renaming `Expand` to `Unpack`, to reflect the terminology we use with regular tuples. I'm surprised no one else has suggested this, so I might be missing something - are there any arguments against calling what we're doing 'unpacking'?
I think that's reasonable.
It looks like there is precedent for use of the term "unpacking" in the existing Python documentation: - "iterable unpacking", when talking about *args > https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#expression-lists - "unpacking argument lists", when talking about *args > https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/controlflow.html#unpacking-argument-lists - "dictionary unpacking" when talking about **kwargs > https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#dictionary-displays So even though I personally still like Expand, I agree that Unpack would probably be more consistent with existing documentation (and search engine keywords). Best, -- David Foster | Seattle, WA, USA Contributor to TypedDict support for mypy