On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:48 AM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:10:21PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote: > > > > > > And notice that there is absolutely no difficulty with some future > > > enhancement to allow positional arguments after keyword arguments. > > > > > > > We've already discussed in this thread that we shouldn't fear conflicting > > with other (real or hypothetical) proposals, even if they're likely. As I > > see it, the chance of allowing positional arguments after keyword > arguments > > is basically zero. The restriction is intentionally there for a good > reason. > > Python already allows positional arguments after keyword > arguments: > > py> sorted(reverse=True, *([1, 4, 2, 3],)) > [4, 3, 2, 1] > Haha, that's very clever. I had to think for a bit about why that's allowed. So let me specify: we don't allow non-variadic positional arguments after keyword arguments, and I don't think we ever will or should. > I have an actual, concrete possible enhancement in mind: relaxing the > restriction on parameter order. > What? Do you think that the current restriction is bad, and we should just drop it? Why?
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/BJWY3UPHNPMWWE7X7C3TE7QIIFKP6ZZQ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
