Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 4/20/06, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Some wilder ideas for keyword-only arguments:
>>
>> def spam(a, b, c, {d, e, f=x}):
>> # d, e are mandatory keyword-only
>> # f is optional keyword-only
>
>
> IMO anything using any kind of nested brackets inside the argument
> list is doomed. Such syntax is too close to resembling a single
> argument with a complex sub-structure, even if there's a prefix
> operator.
I thought I remembered some talk about removing sub-structure from
functions signatures in py3k...? It's a pretty obscure feature, and
when the substructure pattern doesn't match the call the exception is
hard to decypher.
>>> def p((x, y)): pass
>>> p(1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
File "<stdin>", line 1, in p
TypeError: unpack non-sequence
...that exception is actually considerably worse than I expected.
--
Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
_______________________________________________
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
