On 06/09/18 15:05, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 3:11:46 PM UTC+2, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, Anders Hovmöller wrote:
I have a working implementation for a new syntax which would make
using keyword arguments a lot nicer. Wouldn't it be awesome if instead
of:
foo(a=a, b=b, c=c, d=3, e=e)
we could just write:
foo(*, a, b, c, d=3, e)
and it would mean the exact same thing?
No.
Heh. I did expect the first mail to be uncivil :P
For comparison, my reaction did indeed involve awe. It was full of it,
in fact :-p Sorry, but that syntax looks at best highly misleading --
how many parameters are we passing? I don't like it at all.
I'm in favour of consistent naming when it helps the code, when the
names are clear and relevant.
Which is what I'm saying.
Actually you are not. Adding specific syntax support is a strong signal
that you expect people to use it and (in this case) use consistent
naming. Full stop. It's a much stronger statement than you seem to think.
I disagree that f(*, page) is more readable than an explicit named
keyword argument f(page=page).
People prefer f(page) today. For some reason. That might refute your
statement or not, depending on why they do it.
Evidence?
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
