[Python-ideas] PEP 505: None-aware operators

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:11:08PM -0500, Abe Dillon wrote:
> The problem here is not whether it's explicit. It's about Readability and
> conciseness. Using symbols in place of words almost always harms
> readability in favor of conciseness.

And that is why we prefer COBOL over unreadable Perl-like languages that 
use unreadable symbols like:

    arithmetic operators  + - * / // % **
    bitwise operators  & | ^ >> << ~
    comparison operators  == != < <= >= >
    function call symbols  func(arg)
    argument packing and unpacking  *args, **kwargs
    sequence slicing  seq[::]
    assignment  =
    comments  #
    decorator syntax @

What a horrible, unreadable language that would be.

REMARK this is much better than Perl-like x = func(a, b, c)
PUT THE RESULT OF CALLING FUNCTION func WITH ARGUMENTS a AND b AND c INTO x

\s


Why do you claim that symbols and conciseness is "almost always" worse 
for readability? Your assertion doesn't survive even a cursory 
consideration.

Readability doesn't occur in a vacuum. You have to understand the 
symbols, and it doesn't matter whether they are punctuation or words, if 
you don't understand them, they're "unreadable":

    result = page_count + 1  # readable
    jwrtsv = xpwvabs_ue + 1  # what?
    result obqxayrhs page_count wmsna 1 # what?

The first time I encounted Python 1.5, I found it unreadable: it was 
full of mysterious keywords "class", "def", strange punctuation like 
[1:] and x.y, and idioms I couldn't guess like

    for i in range(len(seq))

With no context, it might as well have been Ancient Sumarian. 

Do you know what helps readability? *Learning to read*. Once you have 
learned to read ?. and friends, they will be as readable as . and 
slicing is now.



-- 
Steve