Serhiy Storchaka schrieb am 01.06.19 um 09:02: > I have a related proposition. Yesterday I have reported two bugs (and Pablo > quickly fixed them) related to handling positional-only arguments. These > bugs were occurred due to subtle changing the meaning of co_argcount. When > we make some existing parameters positional-only, we do not add new > arguments, but mark existing parameters. But co_argcount now means the only > number of positional-or-keyword parameters. Most code which used > co_argcount needs now to be changed to use co_posonlyargcount+co_argcount. > > I propose to make co_argcount meaning the number of positional parameters > (i.e. positional-only + positional-or-keyword). This would remove the need > of changing the code that uses co_argcount.
Sounds reasonable to me. The main distinction points are positional arguments vs. keyword arguments vs. local variables. Whether the positional ones are positional or positional-only is irrelevant in many cases. > PyCode_New() can be kept unchanged, but we can add new PyCode_New2() or > PyCode_NewEx() with different signature. It's not a commonly used function, and it's easy for C code to adapt. I don't think it's worth adding a new function to the C-API here, compared to just changing the signature. Very few users would benefit, at the cost of added complexity. Stefan _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
