Op 2006-03-10, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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.
You argued that f(,,3) would somehow be hard to figure out. > 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. I didn't claim that the f(,,1) syntax was justified. I asked for an explanation about why something like f(,,3) would be hard to figure out. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list