On 02/26/2013 06:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:47 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
I think positional-only functions should be discouraged, but we don't
If I were writing something like Clinic, I would be tempted to not
have that option. But I was actually thinking about something in the
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/issue16612
I'm guessing python-dev is the right place for the ten-thousand-foot view
topics: the merits of the specific proposed DSL syntax, the possible runtime
extension API, and the approach as a whole. So for now let's
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
http://bugs.python.org/issue16612
I'm guessing python-dev is the right place for the ten-thousand-foot view
topics: the merits of the specific proposed DSL syntax, the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
Following up on a conversation on python-dev from last December:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/122920.html
I'm pleased to announced PEP 436, proposing Argument Clinic for adoption
into the
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
For anyone who isn't following the issue: A PEP proposing a different DSL
will be forthcoming either this or next weekend.
If the two proposals share at least the motivation, would it not be more
constructive to just have them listed as
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stefan Krah ste...@bytereef.org wrote:
Eli Bendersky eli...@gmail.com wrote:
For anyone who isn't following the issue: A PEP proposing a different DSL
will be forthcoming either this or next weekend.
If the two proposals share at least the
On 02/26/2013 08:11 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The PEP gives an internal, developer-focused rationale. I think there
is also an external, user-focused rationale. As much as possible (with
obvious caveats about type introspection), I think it should be
transparent to users (other than speed)
On 2/26/2013 1:47 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 02/26/2013 08:11 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
The PEP gives an internal, developer-focused rationale. I think there
is also an external, user-focused rationale. As much as possible (with
obvious caveats about type introspection), I think it should be
Following up on a conversation on python-dev from last December:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-December/122920.html
I'm pleased to announced PEP 436, proposing Argument Clinic for adoption
into the CPython source tree.
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0436/
