tomer filiba wrote:
> talin asked for comments, so
>
> def f(a, b, *, c, d)
>
> seems wrong to me. '*' can't be a token on its own, at least
> that's the way i see it. opeators shouldn't stand for themselves.
> just like the {/} (empty set) was rejected.
>
Um, before we get all tangled up in syntax arguments, I'd like to ask a
slightly broader question - do we need this at all?
Remember, the PEP has two parts. The first part (allowing keywords
arguments after *args) seems relatively uncontroversial - there are a
lot of use cases, and a fairly small minority of people who have argued
against it.
The discussion of the '*' syntax started with the following request from
Guido:
> 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.
While a number of people have submitted possible use cases for this
feature, others have challenged the validity of such cases.
At this point, I don't feel that the use cases for part 2 of the PEP are
as well-understood as the use cases for part 1.
- Talin
_______________________________________________
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
