On 12/18/2010 1:04 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 13.12.2010 21:08, schrieb Glenn Linderman:
On 12/13/2010 11:39 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
my_thing = Thing(
foo = Foo(arg1, arg2, ...),
bar = Bar(arg3, arg4, ...),
...
)
and I've found the trailing comma very convenient during refa
Am 13.12.2010 21:08, schrieb Glenn Linderman:
> On 12/13/2010 11:39 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>> my_thing = Thing(
>> foo = Foo(arg1, arg2, ...),
>> bar = Bar(arg3, arg4, ...),
>> ...
>> )
>>
>> and I've found the trailing comma very convenient during refactoring
>> and API experimen
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 12/13/2010 2:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum
wrote:
I'm at least +0 on
allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
FWIW, I am also about +0
On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that a trailing comma in an argument list is more likely to
>> be a user error than a deliberate comma-for-the-future.
>
> Really? Have you observed this? Ev
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:51 PM, R. David Murray
> wrote:
> > It seems like the status quo is fine. I wouldn't object to it being
> > made more consistent. I would object to removing the existing cases.
>
> Same here, on all three counts
On 12/13/2010 1:55 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
It seems to me that a trailing comma in an argument list is more likely to be a
user error than a deliberate comma-for-the-future.
It seems to me that a trailing comma, especially in the case of one
parameter per line, is a deliberate comma-for-
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> Same here. A strong +1 for a consistent rule (always or never allowed) with
>> a +1 for always given others use case of one param/arg per line.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a trailing
On Dec 13, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Same here. A strong +1 for a consistent rule (always or never allowed) with a
> +1 for always given others use case of one param/arg per line.
It seems to me that a trailing comma in an argument list is more likely to be a
user error than a d
On 12/13/2010 2:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm at least +0 on
allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
FWIW, I am also about +0.5 on allowing trail
On 13Dec2010 20:17, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
| On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
| Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
|
| > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
| > > I'm at least +0 on
| > > allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
| > >
| >
| > FWIW, I am also
On 12/13/2010 11:39 AM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
my_thing = Thing(
foo = Foo(arg1, arg2, ...),
bar = Bar(arg3, arg4, ...),
...
)
and I've found the trailing comma very convenient during refactoring
and API experimentation. (There's still good fun to be had arguing
about the indentat
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:51 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
> It seems like the status quo is fine. I wouldn't object to it being
> made more consistent. I would object to removing the existing cases.
Same here, on all three counts. In one of the projects I'm currently
working on, we've settled on
On 12/13/2010 11:17 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I'm at least +0 on
allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
FWIW, I am also about +0.5 on allowing trail
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > I'm at least +0 on
> > allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
> >
>
> FWIW, I am also about +0.5 on allowing trailing comma. Note that in a
> simi
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm at least +0 on
> allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned.
>
FWIW, I am also about +0.5 on allowing trailing comma. Note that in a
similar situation, the C standardization committee has erred on the
side of consis
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I actually make use of the feature when dealing with APIs which both a)
> take lots of arguments (more than fit comfortably on two lines at
> whatever indentation they are called), and b) have optional trailing
> arguments: I always leave the
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:25:58 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
> > I think that seeing that:
> >
> > =A0 =A0def f(a, b): ...
> > =A0 =A0def f(a, *, b): ...
> > =A0 =A0def f(a, *args, b): ...
> > =A0 =A0x(1, 2, 3, 4, z=3D5)
> > =A0 =A0x(1, *(2,3,4
Nick Coghlan dixit (2010-12-13, 23:25):
> Function arguments are not lists. Even when separated onto multiple
> lines, the closing "):" should remain on the final line with other
> content.
Not necessarily, IMHO.
1.
What about my example with '-> xxx' return-value annotation? (especially
when th
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
> I actually make use of the feature when dealing with APIs which both a)
> take lots of arguments (more than fit comfortably on two lines at
> whatever indentation they are called), and b) have optional trailing
> arguments: I always leave the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2010 08:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
>> I think that seeing that:
>>
>>def f(a, b): ...
>>def f(a, *, b): ...
>>def f(a, *args, b): ...
>>x(1, 2, 3, 4, z=5)
>>x(1, *(
On 13/12/2010 13:25, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
I think that seeing that:
def f(a, b): ...
def f(a, *, b): ...
def f(a, *args, b): ...
x(1, 2, 3, 4, z=5)
x(1, *(2,3,4), z=5)
As per the closure of the affected tickets, the li
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Jan Kaliszewski wrote:
> I think that seeing that:
>
> def f(a, b): ...
> def f(a, *, b): ...
> def f(a, *args, b): ...
> x(1, 2, 3, 4, z=5)
> x(1, *(2,3,4), z=5)
As per the closure of the affected tickets, the likely outcome of such
a discussion wo
Dear Python Developers,
It is s my first post to python-dev, so let me introduce myself briefly:
Jan Kaliszewski, programmer and composer, sometimes also NGO activist.
Coming to the matter... The discussion started with remark by Mark
Dickinson about such a syntax oddity:
> def f(a, b,): ...
23 matches
Mail list logo
