Alister via Python-list at 2018/6/13 PM 08:43 wrote:
IMHO, there is no reason to check the *args has to appear at last in
positional argument list in a function call because of there is no
"unknown number of parameters" at the time of unpacking. It should be
alright to write line 19
action(
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:10 AM Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:12 +, Alister via Python-list wrote:
>
> > I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't
> > prove it.
>
> Heh, that reminds me of Stephen Pinker's comment from "Enlightenment Now":
>
>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:43:12 +, Alister via Python-list wrote:
> I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't
> prove it.
Heh, that reminds me of Stephen Pinker's comment from "Enlightenment Now":
"one cannot reason that there's no such thing as reason"
but on the oth
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:21:53 +0800, sa...@caprilion.com.tw wrote:
> [Of the first part]
> line 19 is
> action(progress=progress, *args)
> where the args is a tuple
> args = (i, 3)
> and the function is defined as
> def action(id, reps, progress):
>
> In documents 4.7.2. Keyword Arg
[Of the first part]
line 19 is
action(progress=progress, *args)
where the args is a tuple
args = (i, 3)
and the function is defined as
def action(id, reps, progress):
In documents 4.7.2. Keyword Arguments, it says
'''
def parrot(voltage, state='a stiff', action='voom', type='Norwe
Jach Fong writes:
> ...
> 4.7.4. Unpacking Argument Lists
> The reverse situation occurs when the arguments are already in a list or
> tuple but need to be unpacked for a function call requiring separate
> positional arguments.
> ...
args = [3, 6]
list(range(*args))
> """
>
> I can't
I had read "More on Defining Functions" sections of "The Python
Tutorial" carefully yesterday. One thing in the example code(Re: How can
an int be '+' with a tuple?) puzzles me again. It's the line 19:
def progress(*any):
threadQueue.put((onProgress, any + context))
action
