On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > >>>>*a, b, c = a, b, *c > > > > +0 on allowing * in other than the last position. > > > > The left-hand side of all this is already in. Only the rhs is new. > > I'm worried that allowing things like > > x = a, b, *c, d, *e, f > > is going to make people want to do this in a function > call as well. Does your patch permit that, or only > when constructing a tuple? > The patch does not, yet. Guido did ask that it would work. (To be precise, he asked for 'f(*a, b, c)' to be valid, but it only makes sense to allow, say, 'f(*a, b, *c)' too, and he hasn't said 'no' to that.) However, the grammar for functiondefinitions and -calls is entirely separate from the other unpacking contexts, and modifying the grammer is hard; I'm not done with it yet. -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
_______________________________________________ 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
