Diez B. Roggisch wrote: > Ron Adam wrote: > >> >> Is there a way to preserve or capture the order which keywords are given? >> >> >>> def foo(**kwds): >> ... print kwds >> ... >> >>> foo(one=1, two=2, three=3) >> {'three': 3, 'two': 2, 'one': 1} >> >> >> I would love to reverse the *args, and **kwds as well so I can use >> kwds to set defaults and initiate values and args to set the order of >> expressions. >> >> >> def foo(**__dict__, *args): >> print args >> >> print foo(x=10, y=20, x, y, x+y) >> [10, 20, 30] > > > This is not simply about reversing the order of kwargs and args - this > would require that keyword args would create bindings to variable names > in the scope of the caller. Which is an enterily different beast. And a > major semantic change in python, so it's not possible or at least not > happening before Python 3K. > > Regards, > > Diez
Yes, I kind of thought it would be pretty major. What I'm asking is how to get anything close to this behavior in the current Python 2.4 now either with functions or with class's. Or a way to generalize it in a nested data structure. But that runs into similar problems of self reference. I think the idea of putting the initialization first fits a lot of data patterns. But I really don't know how the best way to implement that would be. I was hoping it just might be possible (for P3k?) to have an argument list look to itself before looking to the caller, and then to globals after that. And not create additional binding in the caller name space. I think that would mean pre-creating the callee name space so it can be accessed by later terms in the argument list before control and the name space is handed over to the function. I think this would be earlier evaluation instead of the late evaluation some want. <clipped examples of possible stuff and jump to the interesting part> def lamb(args): for v in args: print v def feedlamb(): print locals() lamb( (lambda x=10, y=20: (x,y,x+y))() ) print locals() feedlamb() {} 10 20 30 {} AND... (!?) def lamb(args): for v in args: print v def feedlamb(): print locals() y = 20 lamb( (lambda x=10: (x,y,x+y))() ) print locals() feedlamb() {} 10 20 30 {'y': 20} Cool, this is the exact behavior I was thinking of, but without the lambda if possible, and without all the extra parentheses. Anyway to clean this up? Maybe it wouldn't be as big a change as it seems? ;-) Cheers, Ron -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list