> Those default values are not 0 and <size-of-sequence>, you may have > only experience with situations where they behave as such but that > is not the same.
Well, it might be - but the conceptual behavior is (usually) the same. > If you need to know these values then you will need to know them > just as much when a keyword is used or when the default values > are used later. Calling > > f(3) or f(arg5=3) > > Will give you no more a clue about the missing default values > than calling > > f(,,,,,3) > > At least in the last call you are given a clue about missing > arguments. I didn't argue against that - I don't like the proposal, but I'm pretty sure that it won't be accepted in any way whatsoever so I don't bother. I just wanted to point out that you proclaim false evidence for a similar situation already being part of python, and that thus the f(,,1) syntax was justified. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list