On 3/4/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/3/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/3/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have mixed feelings; I won't go so far as to say I oppose removing > > > tuple-arguments, but some of the problems do have other solutions. > > > > Sure some of them have other solutions, but that does not mean that > > they should be fixed just to save this feature. > > I see lukewarm support for keeping these at most, and probably > lukewarm support for removing them at well. That means I get to decide > and nobody will care much (for once :-). So my decision is to get rid > of them. >
Woohoo! Can I go ahead and mark the PEP as accepted then? > > > > Consider PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments) and PEP 3107 (function > > > > annotations) [#pep-3102]_ [#pep-3107]_. Both PEPs have been accepted > > > > and > > > > introduce new functionality within a function's signature. And yet > > > > for both PEPs the new feature cannot be applied to tuple parameters. > > > > > > I hadn't realized that they couldn't be annotated. That could be fixed. > > Actually they can be annotated. But that's no reason to keep them either. :-) > I actually meant they can't be annotated like ``def fxn((a, b):int): pass``. I think what Guido is thinking of is ``def fxn((a:int, b:int)): pass`` (although that causes an assertion error: Python/compile.c:2430: failed assertion `scope || PyString_AS_STRING(name)[0] == '_''). > Though the PEP might be fixed. I will do that right now. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
