On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:57 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:15:32AM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> > 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.
> [...]
>
> > > 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?
>
> No, I have no opinion at the moment on whether we should relax that
> restriction. I'm saying that the mode-shift suggestion:
>
> func(arg, name=value,
> *, # change to auto-fill mode
> alpha, beta, gamma,
> )
>
> will rule out any further relaxation on that restriction, and that is a
> point against it. That's a concrete enhancement that we might allow some
> time. Whether *I personally* want that enhancement is irrelevant.
>
> You on the other hand, claim that my suggestion:
>
> func(arg, name=value,
> **{alpha, beta, gamma},
> )
>
> will also rule out some unspecified, unknown, unimagined future
> enhancements. I'm saying that's a weak argument, unless you have a
> specific enhancement in mind.
>
No I'm not claiming anything close to that. We're misunderstanding each
other quite badly.
We're both talking about possible enhancements involving allowing
non-variadic positional-looking arguments after unpacked keyword arguments:
A: make them auto-named
B: simply allow them and interpret them as positional arguments
C: something we haven't thought of yet
D: something else we haven't thought of yet
I thought you were against A because it would block out C, and I was saying
that following that logic when we eventually think of C it isn't gonna
happen either because it will block out D.
Since you say that ruling out unimagined future enhancements is a weak
argument, I take it to mean that I misunderstood and you weren't arguing
against A because of C, but rather because of B.
Now that I think we've cleared that up: B is a terrible idea, and if anyone
is considering it, I'd support A for no other reason than to prevent B from
happening.
_______________________________________________
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/5P4GFNSLXCEDEENGT2L5HVMPLAOB4Y3G/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
