On 5/23/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, c.l.p was strangely quiet in response to my posting PEP 3102 a few
> days ago. Only two comments, one of a general "ick" variety that seems
> mainly based on personal bias, and another which likes the idea but
> votes a -1 on the 'naked star' syn
Talin writes:
> So in other words, nothing has really changed - most people seem to
> like the idea of keyword-only arguments, but find the 'required
> keyword arguments' syntax confusing. (I haven't found many people
> who were in favor of it, however Guido says that's the form that he
> p
On 5/23/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, c.l.p was strangely quiet in response to my posting PEP 3102 a few
> days ago. Only two comments, one of a general "ick" variety that seems
> mainly based on personal bias, and another which likes the idea but
> votes a -1 on the 'naked star' syn
Talin writes:
> So in other words, nothing has really changed - most people seem to
> like the idea of keyword-only arguments, but find the 'required
> keyword arguments' syntax confusing. (I haven't found many people
> who were in favor of it, however Guido says that's the form that he
> pref
talin asked for comments, so
def f(a, b, *, c, d)
seems wrong to me. '*' can't be a token on its own, at least
that's the way i see it. opeators shouldn't stand for themselves.
just like the {/} (empty set) was rejected.
anyway, this pep is certainly very useful (i would have used it
countless t
tomer filiba wrote:
> i'd vote for placing it at the end of the last
> argument's name, for example:
>
> def f(a, b*, c, d)
Another idea:
def f(a, b; c, d):
It fails the "syntax variants shouldn't look like grime on your monitor"
test though.
Hmm, the next best thing I can come up with is:
d
Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 15:43 -0400, Benji York a écrit :
> Hmm, the next best thing I can come up with is:
>
> def f(a, b, =, c, d):
Why not:
def f(a, b, !c, !d):
The exclamation mark can be thought to say "you must explicitly mention
this one by its name".
I think having a sigil in front o
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Why not:
> def f(a, b, !c, !d):
>
> The exclamation mark can be thought to say "you must explicitly mention
> this one by its name".
> I think having a sigil in front of a variable name is less ugly than
> having a separate sigil between commas as a fake parameter.
In th
Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 17:15 -0400, Benji York a écrit :
> In that case, just use the current default value syntax, sans value (d,
> below):
>
> def f(a, b, c=None, d=):
Then we can't decide whether "c" can be positional or is keyword-only.
___
Py
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le mercredi 24 mai 2006 à 17:15 -0400, Benji York a écrit :
>
>>In that case, just use the current default value syntax, sans value (d,
>>below):
>>
>>def f(a, b, c=None, d=):
>
> Then we can't decide whether "c" can be positional or is keyword-only.
True. As I suspect
tomer filiba wrote:
> talin asked for comments, so
>
> def f(a, b, *, c, d)
>
> seems wrong to me. '*' can't be a token on its own, at least
> that's the way i see it. opeators shouldn't stand for themselves.
But * is not an operator here. It's just a token
with a special meaning in this context
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Why not:
> def f(a, b, !c, !d):
That looks like "you're not allowed to pass these arguments". :-)
--
Greg
___
Python-3000 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
ht
tomer filiba wrote:
> talin asked for comments, so
>
> def f(a, b, *, c, d)
>
> seems wrong to me. '*' can't be a token on its own, at least
> that's the way i see it. opeators shouldn't stand for themselves.
> just like the {/} (empty set) was rejected.
>
Um, before we get all tangled up in sy
13 matches
Mail list logo
