Guido van Rossum wrote:
> 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).

BTW, do we want to allow foo(1, *args1, 2, *args2, 3)?

And what about foo(bar=17, **kwargs1, baz=23, **kwargs2)?

Servus,
    Walter

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to