Jumping in: What if a construct
xx(*args1, **kwargs1)yy(*args2, **kwargs2) was interpreted as xxyy(*(args1+args2), **(kwargs1+kwargs2)) (Note: with **(kwargs1+kwargs2) I mean “put keyword arguments in the order given”, since dicts can't be added) This construct is currently a syntax error. The intent of this idea is to help improve legibility. Example: def place_at(item, x, y): blah blah could be called as place(item)_at(x, y) I believe it makes code more readable; it's also a more terse alternate to a call like: place_at(item=item, x=x, y=y) Another example: group(iterable)_by(callable) I can think of some objections myself; the most important is whether the current parser (with a complexity defined by the wishes of Guido, which I faintly recall reading about a long time ago) can do that or not. I also don't know if any other language exists supporting this construct. There is also a big window for misuse (i.e. break the function/method name in illogical places), but I would classify this under “consenting adults”. It might be suggested as good form that function names break at underscores, like my examples. I know it seems extreme. I only posted this idea here because I would like some input about how feasible it can be and whether people like it or not. Any input is welcome; however, I kindly request that negative replies include counter-arguments (an abrupt “no” or “yuck!” does not help others improve their knowledge of Python or Pythonic- ness :). Thanks in advance. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
