[Python-ideas] Make obj[] valid syntax?

[Thomas Heller]

Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> So what?
> 
> x =
> 
> is not equivalent to
> 
> x = ()

I won't argue this with you ;-)

>> > Oleg Broytmann schrieb:
>>> > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 07:29:52PM +0100, Thomas Heller wrote:
>>>> > >> 'obj[]' should behave like 'obj[()]' does:
>>> > > 
>>> > >    I remember it was discussed and rejected a year or two ago. Still -1
>>> > > from me. Explicit [()] is better than implicit [].
>> > 
>> > However:   obj[(1, 2, 3)] is the same as obj[1, 2, 3]
> 
>    1, 2, 3 is a tuple, and () is a tuple, should there be a syntax for an
> empty tuple without parenthesis?
> 
>    Thomas, there were many arguments in the previous discussion. This one
> was there, too. But finally the proposal was rejected.

I see that my proposal probably won't fly.  This encourages me to describe
my full wish, just for fun:

It would be nice if I could have positional AND keyword arguments for __getitem__
and __setitem__, so that I could write code like this (COM has named parameters also):

  x = obj.prop[1, 2, lcid=0]
  x = obj.prop[]

  obj.prop[1, 2, lcid=0] = "foo"
  obj.prop[] = "foo"

or even

  x = obj.prop[1, 2, lcid=0]
  x = obj.prop[]
  x = obj.prop # same as previous line (now how would THAT work?)

  obj.prop[1, 2, lcid=0] = "foo"
  obj.prop[] = "foo"
  obj.prop = "foo" # same as previous line

I retract my proposal.

VB-ly, yours

Thomas