PEP 736 – Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation | Hacker News Reader

PEP 736 – Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation

peps.python.org

24 pointsjicea9 comments

Frankly I'm a bit torn on this one as f(x=x) is indeed a common pattern and having just f(x=) reduces the need for multiline invocations but I feel like adding syntatic sugar to python at this point is just giving the snake diabetes.

> ...but I feel like adding syntactic sugar to python at this point is just giving the snake diabetes.

Haha! :D nice one!

Personally I would prefer if they chose the `f(:x)` syntax, because it reminds me of how Ruby uses symbols to represent instance variables.

They mention this on in "Prior Art" https://peps.python.org/pep-0736/#prior-art

And it just makes sense to do it this way as

a) it is basically the same as in ruby, except that the long form in ruby uses a colon and python uses an equals sign

b) this syntax already exists in python for f-strings

But I agree x= looks a bit "unfinished" and erroneous while :x does not IMO, though I'm looking forward to do fewer keypresses if this gets released.

Since any argument after one or more "**" must be a keyword-argument, perhaps f(pos_a, pos_b, **kwargs, kw_a, kw_b, ...) or even f(pos_a, pos_b, **, kw_a, kw_b, ...).

This would make the proposal's first example read:

    my_function(**, my_first_variable, my_second_variable, my_third_variable)

More readable IMHO. They do mention f(a, b, *, x) in the proposal and present some objections, but arguably ** makes it easy to understand that these are keyword arguments.

Finally! This makes constructing dicts so much easier. I somewhat dislike the syntax though, =foo would have been better because it stands out more. I feel like syntax should be chosen with eyes and not brain, they may have all kinds of rationales for why foo= is better but it's just going to get lost more easily.

my_function(my_first_variable=, my_second_variable=, my_third_variable=)

The coder's laziness have gone too far. That's ridiculous.

Just checked, the author is a Google folk, that says a lot.

I believe it's because Google is more saturated of devs than it actually needs for their current projects, so the surplus is trying to keep their credit afloat by brute forcing useless pitch to outside projects.

The PEP is sponsored by Guido, and it’s something that has been suggested quite a number of times over the years. I’d suggest reading the PEP before commenting about it online.

What!? Sorry, you’re a software developer, you’re literally in the business of automation. This sort of “back in my day we walked to snow up hill both ways with a sheep on our back”-ism is just absurd.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com