On 17Jul2011 15:54, ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ <tzotz...@gmail.com> wrote: | 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) [...] | 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.
Another problem is the scope for error. I can easily imagine typing: x=foo(x)bah(y) when I intended to type: x=foo(x)+bah(y) Adding your syntax causes silent breakage later instead of immediate syntax error now. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean; distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. - Paul Barton-Davis <pa...@cs.washington.edu> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
