"Greg Ewing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry Reedy wrote: >> The dispute is about the sensibility and >> politeness of requiring a small fixed number of required, no-default >> args >> to be passed by name only
>There seems to be some confusion between two different >subthreads here. BJörn Lindqvist seemed to be saying that >instead of my suggested > make_person(=name, =age, =phone, =location) >as a substitute for > make_person(name=name, age=age, phone=phone, location=location) >it would be better to pass the arguments positionally. At present, Python allows this as a choice. > I was pointing out that you can't do this when the thing you're > calling requires them to be passed by keyword. My point has been that the function writer should not make such a requirement (for four no-defaut, required params) and that proposing to do so with the proposed '*' is an abuse (for public code). The caller should continue to be allowed to make the choice. Again, this case is completely different from the case of numerous optional args that you brought up. Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
