Hacker News Reader

Comment by ayhanfuat | Hacker News Reader

I like keyword-only arguments, but they become tedious too quickly - especially when the variable names already match (fn(x=x, y=y, z=z)). I wish Python had JavaScript’s shorthand property syntax. (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...).

View on HN

JS's shorthand property syntax is lovely and elegant. Python can't really adopt it though as it clashes with the set syntax (which is such a niche use case it really shouldn't have a special syntax).

You could do something like f(**{x, y, z}) with just that. Not the prettiest, but at least it would be DRY.

But in general Python devs seem to prefer "explicit" ad-hoc syntax for each use case instead of composable "primitives". Which is approaching a kind of C++ situation where relatively few users know the syntax comprehensively.

Julia uses a semicolon prefix in a tuple to denote this restructuring. I think that could fit into Python without breaking the whole ecosystem.

Python would probably just use the asterisk to mimic the syntax used to declare kw-only kwargs.

def f(x, , y): ...

f(foo, , y)

> But in general Python devs seem to prefer "explicit" ad-hoc syntax for each use case instead of composable "primitives".

I hope you don't consider JS having "composable primitives". To backup my point: there is no anything similar to underscore-like libraries for Python. All is covered by stdlib and syntax.

> for(in) / for(of)

Cough, cough.

Libraries like underscore are possible because of JS having composable primitives.

JS has many many warts, and the for-loop is a good example of this. And the _.each is a good example how the core JS allows for working around it.

But underscore is literally a bunch of functions taking lambdas. Python also has functions and lambdas. [1] shows it could provide the same interface. I don't get what composable primitives JS has.

[1]: https://pydash.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

Python 3.14 adds that shorthand, but with a slight different (and IMO uglier) syntax:

  fn(x=,y=,z=)

https://peps.python.org/pep-0736/

edit: nevermind, that PEP was rejected :/

That PEP says “rejected”

Thankfully so. As much as I want a shorthand, this syntax wasn't it.

By the look of it, the feeling I get is that a decent and convenient syntax proposal has been bikeshedded into rejection. Some particular form of keyword arguments at invocation would definitely make quite a few of my scripts more readable.

there should definitely be an ocaml-like equivalent of "~argument"

it's also a gentle force towards consistent naming, ie having the same name on caller and callee site.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com