On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 January 2018 at 07:49, Mario Corchero <marioc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am happy to put some work into this (and Pablo Galindo in CC offered to > > pair on it) but it is not clear for me whether the next step is drafting > a > > new PEP or this is just blocked on "re-evaluating" the current one. > > I think that would be a question for Larry, > I think you meant for Guido. It's not Larry's language (yet :-). > since there are two main options here: > > - proposing just the "/" part of PEP 457 (which allows positional-only > arguments, but doesn't allow the expression of all builtin and > standard library signatures) > - proposing the full PEP 547, > I assume you meant PEP 457 again. :-) > including the "argument groups" feature > (which is a bigger change, but allows the expression of signatures > like "range([start,] stop, [step,] /)") > > One key benefit I'd see to a new subset-of-457 PEP is that it would > allow a decision to be made on the basic "/" proposal without deciding > one way or the other on whether or not to provide a native way to > express signatures like the one for range(). I personally don't think such signatures are common enough to warrant special syntax, and I don't want to encourage them. The few we have (basically range(), slice() and a few functions in the curses module) don't inspire a lot of copy-cat APIs. OTOH the more plain positional-only arguments are a pretty common need -- for example, for methods that are conventionally used that way, and overridden with disregard for argument names. (IOW I agree with you here. ;-) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
