On 5/23/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, c.l.p was strangely quiet in response to my posting PEP 3102 a few > days ago. Only two comments, one of a general "ick" variety that seems > mainly based on personal bias, and another which likes the idea but > votes a -1 on the 'naked star' syntax.
Lucky you. (If you want more negative feedback, I'd be happy to volunteer as a co-author. :-) > So in other words, nothing has really changed - most people seem to like > the idea of keyword-only arguments, but find the 'required keyword > arguments' syntax confusing. (I haven't found many people who were in > favor of it, however Guido says that's the form that he prefers.) Well, I'm at best +0 on it, but I haven't seen any proposal that I like better (or even as well). > A few people have complained about keyword-only arguments with no > defaults, but my feeling is that these concerns are based on a mistaken > understanding of how keyword arguments work. (Many people seem to > conflate keyword arguments and default argument values, because they > both use '=' and they both are required to come after positional arguments.) Yeah, that confusion happens a lot, even here. > What's the next step after this? One thing that's missing is a sample > implementation. Unfortunately, its not quite as simple as hacking lambda > or ASTs, this one affects code generation (AFAICT) and is not something > I feel confident to do myself. I suggest you give it a try anyway, and ask for help if you get stuck. There are plenty of people who can help out, and you'l likely learn something. -- --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
