> A finer grained analysis tool would be helpful. I'm -0 on the idea because I > believe it would discourage more expressive names in calling contexts in > order to enable the proposed syntax. But I also see a big difference between > cases where all keywords match calling names and cases where only a few of > them do.
I’ll try to find some time to tune it when I get back to work then. > I.e. this is probably a small win: > > # function (a=a, b=b, c=c, d=d) > function(*, a, b, c, d) > > But this feels like it invites confusion and bugs: > > # function (a=my_a, b=b, c=my_c, d=d) > function(*, a=my_a, b, c=my_c, d) That example could also be rewritten as function(a=my_a, c=my_c, *, b, d) or function(*, b, c, d, a=my_a, c=my_c) Both are much nicer imo. Hmmm... maybe my suggestion is actually better if the special case is only after * so the first of those is legal and the rest not. Hadn’t considered that option before now. > I know these examples use simplified and artificial names, but I think the > case is even stronger with more realistic names or expressions. Stronger in what direction? :P / Anders _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/