PEP 637: Integrate feedback from GvR (#1620)

pep-0637.rst

@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@ and would also provide appropriate semantics.
 This PEP is a successor to PEP 472, which was rejected due to lack of
 interest in 2019. Since then there's been renewed interest in the feature.
 
-
 Overview
 ========
 
@@ -70,7 +69,7 @@ a general consensus on an implementation strategy has now been reached.
 Use cases
 ---------
 
-The following practical use cases present different cases where a keyworded
+The following practical use cases present different cases where a keyword
 specification would improve notation and provide additional value:
 
 1. To provide a more communicative meaning to the index, preventing e.g. accidental
@@ -124,15 +123,12 @@ implementation. This PEP only defines and dictates the behavior of python
 regarding passed keyword arguments, not how these arguments should be
 interpreted and used by the implementing class.
 
-Syntax and Semantics
+Current status of indexing operation
-====================
+------------------------------------
 
-Current status
+Before detailing the new syntax and semantics to the indexing notation, it is
---------------
+relevant to analyse how the indexing notation works today, in which contexts,
-
+and how it is different from a function call.
-Before attacking the problem of detailing the new syntax and semantics to the
-indexing notation, it is relevant to analyse how the indexing notation works
-today, in which contexts, and how it is different from a function call.
 
 Subscripting ``obj[x]`` is, effectively, an alternate and specialised form of
 function call syntax with a number of differences and restrictions compared to
@@ -177,11 +173,11 @@ imbalance between the two forms. It is therefore not a given that the two
 should behave transparently and symmetrically.
 
 The third difference is that functions have names assigned to their
-arguments, unless the passed parameters are captured with \*args, in which case
+arguments, unless the passed parameters are captured with ``*args``, in which case
 they end up as entries in the args tuple. In other words, functions already
 have anonymous argument semantic, exactly like the indexing operation. However,
-__(get|set|del)item__ is not always receiving a tuple as the ``index`` argument
+``__(get|set|del)item__`` is not always receiving a tuple as the ``index`` argument
-(to be uniform in behavior with \*args).  In fact, given a trivial class::
+(to be uniform in behavior with ``*args``).  In fact, given a trivial class::
 
     class X:
         def __getitem__(self, index):
@@ -224,18 +220,17 @@ this one isn't::
 
     a[]
 
+Specification
+=============
 
-New Proposal
+Before describing the specification, it is important to stress the difference in
-------------
+nomenclature between *positional index*, *final index*  and *keyword argument*, as it is important to
-
+understand the fundamental asymmetries at play. The ``__(get|set|del)item__``
-Before describing the new proposal, it is important to stress the difference in
-nomenclature between _index_ and keyword _argument_, as it is important to
-understand the fundamental asymmetry between the two. The ``__(get|set|del)item__``
 is fundamentally an indexing operation, and the way the element is retrieved,
-set, or deleted is through an index.
+set, or deleted is through an index, the *final index*.
 
-The current status quo is to build a _final_ index from what is passed between
+The current status quo is to directly build the *final index* from what is passed between
-square brackets, the _positional_ index. In other words, what is passed in the
+square brackets, the *positional index*. In other words, what is passed in the
 square brackets is trivially used to generate what the code in ``__getitem__`` then uses
 for the indicisation operation. As we already saw for the dict, ``d[1]`` has a
 positional index of ``1`` and also a final index of ``1`` (because it's the element that is
@@ -247,8 +242,8 @@ unhashable. The positional index is what is currently known as the ``index`` par
 ``__getitem__``. Nevertheless, nothing prevents to construct a dictionary-like class that
 creates the final index by e.g. converting the positional index to a string.
 
-The new proposal extends the current status quo, and grants more flexibility to
+This PEP extends the current status quo, and grants more flexibility to
-create the _final_ index via an enhanced syntax that combines the positional index
+create the final index via an enhanced syntax that combines the positional index
 and keyword arguments, if passed.
 
 The above brings an important point across. Keyword arguments, in the context of the index
@@ -256,33 +251,9 @@ operation, may be used to take indexing decisions to obtain the final index, and
 will have to accept values that are unconventional for functions. See for
 example use case 1, where a slice is accepted.
 
-The new notation will make all of the following valid notation::
+The successful implementation of this PEP will result in the following behavior:
 
-    >>> a[1]               # Current case, single index
+1. An empty subscript is still illegal, regardless of context::
-    >>> a[1, 2]            # Current case, multiple indexes
-    >>> a[1, 2:5]          # Current case, slicing.
-    >>> a[3, R=3, K=4]     # New case. Single index, and keyword arguments
-    >>> a[K=3, R=2]        # New case. No index with keyword arguments
-    >>> a[3, R=3:10, K=4]  # New case. Slice in keyword argument
-    >>> a[3, R=..., K=4]   # New case. Ellipsis in keyword argument
-
-The new notation will NOT make the following valid notation::
-
-    >>> a[]                # INVALID. No index and no keyword arguments.
-
-It is worth stressing out that none of what is proposed in this PEP will change
-the behavior of the current core classes that use indexing. Adding keywords to
-the index operation for custom classes is not the same as modifying e.g. the
-standard dict type to handle keyword arguments. In fact, dict (as well as list and other
-stdlib classes with indexing semantics) will remain the same and will continue
-not to accept keyword arguments.
-
-Syntax and Semantics
-====================
-
-The following old semantics are preserved:
-
-1. As said above, an empty subscript is still illegal, regardless of context::
 
        obj[]  # SyntaxError
 
@@ -428,11 +399,15 @@ The following old semantics are preserved:
     called. The same changes should be applied to this method as well,
     so that a writing like ``list[T=int]`` can be accepted.
 
-Existing indexing implementations in standard classes
+Indexing behavior in standard classes (dict, list, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------
+--------------------------------------------------------
 
-As said before, we recommend that current classes that use indexing operations
+None of what is proposed in this PEP will change the behavior of the current
-do not modify their behavior.  In other words, if ``d`` is a ``dict``, the
+core classes that use indexing. Adding keywords to the index operation for
+custom classes is not the same as modifying e.g. the standard dict type to
+handle keyword arguments. In fact, dict (as well as list and other stdlib
+classes with indexing semantics) will remain the same and will continue not to
+accept keyword arguments. In other words, if ``d`` is a ``dict``, the
 statement ``d[1, a=2]`` will raise ``TypeError``, as their implementation will
 not support the use of keyword arguments. The same holds for all other classes
 (list, frozendict, etc.)
@@ -440,7 +415,7 @@ not support the use of keyword arguments. The same holds for all other classes
 Corner case and Gotchas
 -----------------------
 
-With the introduction of the new notation, a few corner cases need to be analysed:
+With the introduction of the new notation, a few corner cases need to be analysed.
 
 1. Technically, if a class defines their getter like this::
 
@@ -541,25 +516,28 @@ With the introduction of the new notation, a few corner cases need to be analyse
 C Interface
 ===========
 
-Resolution of the indexing operation is performed through a call to
+Resolution of the indexing operation is performed through a call to the following functions
-``PyObject_GetItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key)`` for the get operation,
+
-``PyObject_SetItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *value)`` for the set operation, and
+- ``PyObject_GetItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key)`` for the get operation
-``PyObject_DelItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key)`` for the del operation.
+- ``PyObject_SetItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *value)`` for the set operation
+- ``PyObject_DelItem(PyObject *o, PyObject *key)`` for the del operation
 
 These functions are used extensively within the python executable, and are
 also part of the public C API, as exported by ``Include/abstract.h``. It is clear that
 the signature of this function cannot be changed, and different C level functions
 need to be implemented to support the extended call. We propose
-``PyObject_GetItemEx(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *kwargs)``,
-``PyObject_SetItemEx(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *value, PyObject *kwargs)`` and
-``PyObject_DetItemEx(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *kwargs)``.
 
-Additionally, new opcodes will be needed for the enhanced call.
+- ``PyObject_GetItemWithKeywords(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *kwargs)``
-Currently, the implementation uses ``BINARY_SUBSCR``, ``STORE_SUBSCR`` and ``DELETE_SUBSCR``
+- ``PyObject_SetItemWithKeywords(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *value, PyObject *kwargs)``
-to invoke the old functions. We propose ``BINARY_SUBSCR_EX``,
+- ``PyObject_GetItemWithKeywords(PyObject *o, PyObject *key, PyObject *kwargs)``
-``STORE_SUBSCR_EX`` and ``DELETE_SUBSCR_EX`` for the extended operation. The parser will
+
-have to generate these new opcodes. The ``PyObject_(Get|Set|Del)Item`` implementations
+Additionally, new opcodes will be needed for the enhanced call.  Currently, the
-will call the extended methods passing ``NULL`` as kwargs.
+implementation uses ``BINARY_SUBSCR``, ``STORE_SUBSCR`` and ``DELETE_SUBSCR``
+to invoke the old functions. We propose ``BINARY_SUBSCR_KW``,
+``STORE_SUBSCR_KW`` and ``DELETE_SUBSCR_KW`` for the new operations. The
+compiler will have to generate these new opcodes. The
+old C implementations will call the extended methods passing ``NULL`` 
+as kwargs.
 
 Workarounds
 ===========