PEP 736: Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation #3551

joshuabambrick · 2023-11-28T12:23:11Z

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

Standards Track requirements

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--3551.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0736/

ghost · 2023-11-28T12:23:14Z

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

hugovk · 2023-11-28T13:08:33Z

Thanks for the PR! You've marked it as a draft, is it ready for review?

peps/pep-0736.rst

joshuabambrick · 2023-11-28T22:57:07Z

You've marked it as a draft, is it ready for review?

Moving this to 'Ready for review' now.

hugovk

Comparing with the PEP-NNNN template, should we add these missing sections?

For things like Backwards Compatibility and Security Implications, if there's no concerns, it can be useful to say so explicitly. For example, compare https://peps.python.org/pep-0737/#backwards-compatibility

I think How to Teach This would be a useful addition. Probably fine if there's no Reference Implementation.

Backwards Compatibility
=======================

[Describe potential impact and severity on pre-existing code.]


Security Implications
=====================

[How could a malicious user take advantage of this new feature?]


How to Teach This
=================

[How to teach users, new and experienced, how to apply the PEP to their work.]


Reference Implementation
========================

[Link to any existing implementation and details about its state, e.g. proof-of-concept.]

hugovk · 2023-11-28T13:07:48Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+Content-Type: text/x-rst
+Created: 28-Nov-2023
+Python-Version: 3.13
+Post-History: 14-Oct-2023


This will need linking to the new discussion, once the PR is merged.

I'm sorry which new discussion are you referring to?

Sorry for the late reply, I missed this at the time.

https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/#discussing-a-PEP says:

As soon as a PEP number has been assigned and the draft PEP is committed to the PEP repository, a discussion thread for the PEP should be created to provide a central place to discuss and review its contents, and the PEP should be updated so that the Discussions-To header links to it.

...

If a PEP undergoes a significant re-write or other major, substantive changes to its proposed specification, a new thread should typically be created in the chosen venue to solicit additional feedback. If this occurs, the Discussions-To link must be updated and a new Post-History entry added pointing to this new thread.

peps/pep-0736.rst

joshuabambrick · 2023-12-02T14:25:14Z

For things like Backwards Compatibility and Security Implications, if there's no concerns, it can be useful to say so explicitly. For example, compare https://peps.python.org/pep-0737/#backwards-compatibility

Good point, I will add those.

I think How to Teach This would be a useful addition.

I'll have a think about this and look at some other examples.

Probably fine if there's no Reference Implementation.

I've added a reference implementation section with a link. However the link target should probably become PR rather than a branch.

hugovk · 2024-01-08T05:29:19Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+==========
+
+.. [1] Issue 36817: Add = to f-strings for easier debugging. - Python tracker
+   https://bugs.python.org/issue36817


GitHub is more accessible than bpo:

Suggested change

https://bugs.python.org/issue36817

https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/80998

Thanks, will update

hugovk · 2024-01-08T05:31:47Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+.. [1] Issue 36817: Add = to f-strings for easier debugging. - Python tracker
+   https://bugs.python.org/issue36817
+.. [2] Ruby keyword argument syntactic sugar
+   https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/#:~:text=Other%20Notable%20New%20Features


Are these highlights intentional? If not, let's delete. (I'm not sure if they're Chrome only?)

Suggested change

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/#:~:text=Other%20Notable%20New%20Features

https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/

It is intentional. It looks to me like it has broad browser support as well:

https://caniuse.com/url-scroll-to-text-fragment

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Text_fragments

I'm using Firefox, and the highlight didn't do anything for me. It might be better to deep link to the nearest linkable section heading?

Yes, caniuse.com indicates that unfortunately Firefox is the only major browser lacking support yet. The ruby-lang.org doesn't have any IDs I can anchor to so my sense is to leave this one is as it's helpful where it does work? For reasonml.github.io, I'll switch to #function-application

For pages without linkable anchors, I tend to add a hint in the reference on what word or words to search for in the page, like this: Ruby 3.1.0 release notes (search for "keyword arguments").

Sounds like a good idea, will do.

hugovk · 2024-01-08T05:32:12Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+.. [2] Ruby keyword argument syntactic sugar
+   https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/#:~:text=Other%20Notable%20New%20Features
+.. [3] ReasonML named argument punning
+   https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/function#:~:text=Named%20argument%20punning


Suggested change

https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/function#:~:text=Named%20argument%20punning

https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/function

Again this was intentional. Happy to remove if there's a hard preference but I think the highlights add value.

Will switch to #function-application for Firefox support.

hugovk · 2024-01-08T05:36:38Z

@joshuabambrick @Rosuav Where are we up to with this? Are you ready for merge?

Rosuav · 2024-01-08T05:40:14Z

I'm happy to see it merged and ready for the next round of discussion.

hugovk · 2024-01-09T15:03:26Z

OK, let's merge! We have to click "resolve" on the suggestions above to merge, but they can wait for next time.

joshuabambrick · 2024-01-10T13:46:51Z

Thanks all for your input on this.

pawamoy

Just added 3 comments, let me know if I shouldn't review here directly and rather comment in the Discuss thread 😉
EDIT: oh, I realized just now it's already merged... 😫

pawamoy · 2024-01-15T14:29:23Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+The feature is confusing
+------------------------
+
+We argue that:


Shouldn't it be explained why the feature is deemed confusing by some? Only listing counter-points in favor of the PEP seems unfair.

EDIT: oh, I realized just now it's already merged...

No worries, I appreciate your comments and will certainly consider them for the next set of edits.

I don't recall coming across any reasons being offered for why the feature may be confusing; I suspect it is primarily the fact that it is new syntax to this language and not that there is anything intrinsically confusing about this syntax in particular. That said, if you identify any concrete reasons, please do let me know on the Discuss thread.

pawamoy · 2024-01-15T14:35:21Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+  if not, then an arbitrary grouping is enforced between different types of
+  keyword arguments.
+
+Objections


It would be nice to address the impact on IDEs. There's a comment in the thread that asks, what happens when you ctrl-click name=? With name=name, you can both go to the name parameter signature and the name variable. What should/could IDEs do with only name=?

Same question for API documentation tools, though I didn't see it in the thread so will expand there myself.

It would also be nice to see notes about the impact it could have on code. The thread mentions the influence it could have on renaming or re-assigning variables to be able to use the feature:

-call(pos, depth=depth+1, opts=options) +depth += 1 +opts = options +call(pos, depth=, opts=)

Thank you. I've try to address these suggestions in #3639

hugovk · 2024-01-17T16:02:00Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+Author: Joshua Bambrick <jbambrick@google.com>,
+        Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
+Sponsor: Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>
+Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/syntactic-sugar-to-encourage-use-of-named-arguments/36217


Thanks for the new thread. Please can you update the PEP?

Suggested change

Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/syntactic-sugar-to-encourage-use-of-named-arguments/36217

Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-736-shorthand-syntax-for-keyword-arguments-at-invocation/43432

Thank you. Yes will do. I'm working on addressing the comments here joshuabambrick#3

Hi! Please could you make a PR just to update this and Post-History? It's been 6 weeks now, anyone reading through the PEP may only know about the old discussion thread and miss the new one. Thanks!

hugovk · 2024-01-17T16:02:59Z

peps/pep-0736.rst

+Type: Standards Track
+Created: 28-Nov-2023
+Python-Version: 3.13
+Post-History: 14-Oct-2023


And here:

Suggested change

Post-History: 14-Oct-2023

Post-History: `17-Jan-2024 <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-736-shorthand-syntax-for-keyword-arguments-at-invocation/43432>`__

peps/pep-0736.rst

joshuabambrick added 12 commits November 11, 2023 14:00

Syntactic sugar PEP draft

90aeb24

Address comments

8c09f77

Fix lint

308d274

Consistent bullet list format

3c340b1

Minor language tweak

b376af7

Assign number 736

c644e16

Fix creation date

3dba8e6

Add python version

8f545ac

Update codeowners

2ed5ab2

Minor tweaks

1db1ed2

Credit Hels15

383cf5d

Reword implementation

05227d2

joshuabambrick added 2 commits November 28, 2023 12:40

Fix spelling error

e18228b

Merge branch 'main' into sugar

0fd14f6

JelleZijlstra reviewed Nov 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0736.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

JelleZijlstra reviewed Nov 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0736.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JelleZijlstra reviewed Nov 28, 2023

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0736.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

joshuabambrick marked this pull request as ready for review November 28, 2023 22:57

joshuabambrick requested a review from a team as a code owner November 28, 2023 22:57

Merge branch 'main' into sugar

c96704c

hugovk reviewed Nov 29, 2023

View reviewed changes

joshuabambrick added 3 commits December 2, 2023 14:29

Add new lines after headings

18d700a

Address more comments

3465bc7

Add new sections

f34fa71

joshuabambrick mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2023

Syntactic sugar PEP draft joshuabambrick/peps#1

Closed

27 tasks

Add @Rousav to CODEOWNERS

eb071f1

joshuabambrick force-pushed the sugar branch from 5c1cee3 to eb071f1 Compare December 2, 2023 15:32

joshuabambrick added 2 commits December 2, 2023 15:53

Add How to Teach This

9fb8930

More descriptive title

d9972d3

joshuabambrick changed the title ~~PEP 736: Syntactic sugar for named arguments~~ PEP 736:Shorthand syntactic sugar for keyword arguments at invocation Dec 2, 2023

joshuabambrick changed the title ~~PEP 736:Shorthand syntactic sugar for keyword arguments at invocation~~ PEP 736: Shorthand syntactic sugar for keyword arguments at invocation Dec 2, 2023

joshuabambrick changed the title ~~PEP 736: Shorthand syntactic sugar for keyword arguments at invocation~~ PEP 736: Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation Dec 2, 2023

Simplify title

f1bf3ce

joshuabambrick force-pushed the sugar branch 2 times, most recently from b471b1a to 177ef6a Compare December 2, 2023 18:10

Expand on specification

e3d6c16

joshuabambrick force-pushed the sugar branch from 177ef6a to e3d6c16 Compare December 2, 2023 18:12

Minor language and formatting tweaks

a415683

hugovk reviewed Jan 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

hugovk merged commit 9498cb7 into python:main Jan 9, 2024

hugovk added the new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review label Jan 9, 2024

pawamoy reviewed Jan 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

hugovk reviewed Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

joshuabambrick commented Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0736.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

peps/pep-0736.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

joshuabambrick commented Jan 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

peps/pep-0736.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

joshuabambrick deleted the sugar branch February 3, 2024 11:12

hugovk mentioned this pull request May 13, 2024

PEP 736: Address first round of feedback #3639

Merged

4 tasks

	https://bugs.python.org/issue36817
	https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/80998

	https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/#:~:text=Other%20Notable%20New%20Features
	https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2021/12/25/ruby-3-1-0-released/

	https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/function#:~:text=Named%20argument%20punning
	https://reasonml.github.io/docs/en/function

	Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/syntactic-sugar-to-encourage-use-of-named-arguments/36217
	Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-736-shorthand-syntax-for-keyword-arguments-at-invocation/43432

	Post-History: 14-Oct-2023
	Post-History: `17-Jan-2024 <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-736-shorthand-syntax-for-keyword-arguments-at-invocation/43432>`__

Uh oh!

PEP 736: Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation #3551

PEP 736: Shorthand syntax for keyword arguments at invocation #3551

Uh oh!

Conversation

joshuabambrick commented Nov 28, 2023 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

Standards Track requirements

Uh oh!

ghost commented Nov 28, 2023 • edited by ghost Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hugovk commented Nov 28, 2023

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick commented Nov 28, 2023

Uh oh!

hugovk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick commented Dec 2, 2023

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick Jan 10, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick Jan 10, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

hugovk commented Jan 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Rosuav commented Jan 8, 2024

Uh oh!

hugovk commented Jan 9, 2024

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick commented Jan 10, 2024

Uh oh!

pawamoy left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joshuabambrick commented Nov 28, 2023 •

edited

Loading

ghost commented Nov 28, 2023 •

edited by ghost

Loading

joshuabambrick Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

joshuabambrick Jan 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pawamoy left a comment •

edited

Loading