Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 5/14/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More importantly, it seems to go against the grain of at least my
>> mental concept of Python call signatures, in which arguments are
>> inherently *named* (and can be passed using explicit names), with
>> only rare exceptions like range(). In contrast, the languages that
>> have this sort of positional thing only allow arguments to be
>> specified by position, IIRC. That's what makes me uncomfortable with it.
>
> Well, in *my* metnal model the argument names are just as often
> irrelevant as they are useful. I'd be taken aback if I saw this in
> someone's code: open(filename="/etc/passwd", mode="r"). Perhaps it's
> too bad that Python cannot express the notion of "these parameters are
> positional-only" except very clumsily.
The idea of positional-only arguments came up during the PEP 3102
discussions. I believe the proposal was to allow a tuple of annotated
names instead of a single name for the varargs parameter:
@overloadable
def range(*(start:int, stop:int, step:int)):
... # implement xrange
@range.overload
def range(*(stop:int,)):
return range(0, x, 1)
@range.overload
def range(*(start:int, stop:int)):
return range(x, y, 1)
PJE's approach (using *args in the base signature, but allowing
overloads to omit it) is probably cleaner, though.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.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
