At 09:45 PM 3/12/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: >On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:32 PM 3/12/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: > > >On 3/12/07, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > the signature of the method called will be:: > > > > __prepare__(name, args, kwargs) > > > > not > > > > __prepare__(name, *args, **kwargs) > > > > right? > > > > > >On 3/12/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure anyone has thought much about it yet. I wonder > > > > if the call shouldn't be made like this: > > > > > > > > __prepare__(name, bases, **kwargs) > > > > > > > > so that if you only expect certain specific keyword args you can > > > > define it like this: > > > > > > > > def __prepare__(name, base, metaclass=X): ... > > > > > >Yeah, seems like **kwargs would be more useful in practice. > > > > Really? Why? I can more easily see circumstances where you'd want to > > restrict the arguments. In the cases I have where I'd switch from a class > > decorator to a class keyword, I have a small set of decorators and would > > have an equally small set of keywords. > >Maybe I'm misunderstanding but isn't this a reason that you'd *want* >the ``**kwargs`` signature?
Sorry, I thought you were saying that **kwargs in the *receiver signature* would be more useful... not **kwargs in the *calling* signature, which is of course what Guido proposed. _______________________________________________ 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
