On 4/17/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The rest of it was just suggesting that permitting keyword > parameters/arguments after *args should be the *only* change we make in this > area. I don't see any point in permitting positional arguments to come after a > keyword argument, even at the call site (this ability was a side effect of > Talin's suggested implementation strategy).
Right. In the call foo(1, 2, abc=42, 3), what's the sequential parameter position for the 3? I think it's ambiguous in the sense that reasonable users could disagree what would be the best choice. But in foo(1, 2, *args, 3, 4) there's no harm; nor is there harm in foo(1, 2, *args, abc=42, **kwds). I'm on the fence about foo(*args, **kwds, abc=42). Here's a related but more complicated wish: define a function in such a way that certain parameters *must* be passed as keywords, *without* using *args or **kwds. This may require a new syntactic crutch. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
