Yury Selivanov added the comment: @Nick:
Agreed on positional-only stuff. > If arguments bound by position disappear from the signature, and those > bound by keyword are mapped to keyword-only parameters with a default, we > should get a valid and accurate signature. But what about my example from the first message: def foo(a, b): pass foo_partial = functools.partial(foo, 'spam') 'foo_partial' now has the following signature: (a='spam', b); where 'a' is a positional_or_keyword parameter, i.e. you can still do 'foo_partial(10, 20)', or 'foo_partial(b=20, a=10)'. (a='spam', b) is not a valid python pure function signature, but is a perfectly valid signature of partial function. And since its arguments aren't positional-only, we shouldn't hide anything. That's why I have this private '_partial_kwarg' attribute, which I don't like and want to remove by adding a PartialParameter subclass. Otherwise, we have something that is hidden and non-documented, but affects Parameter.__hash__ and some other logic. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21117> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
