On 8/22/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, talked over with Jiwon and the room here at the sprint and the preference was to keep it as-is. Reasons were it allowed the position in the signature to be kept with the object (and thus not be reliant on the Signature object to know its position in the actual output), and the possibility of disparate types being in the attribute. Plus Guido preferred the original way. =)
-Brett
brett.cannon wrote:
> Added: peps/trunk/pep-0362.txt
> +Relation With Other PEPs
> +========================
> +
> +"Keyword-Only Arguments [#pep-3102]_
> +------------------------------------
> +
> +If keyword-only parameters come into existence, the Parameter object
> +will require modification. A ``keyword_only`` attribute will be added
> +that holds a boolean representing whether the parameter is
> +keyword-only or not.
Why an extra attribute instead of using "x.position is None"? Unlike
default_value, None is not otherwise a legitimate value for the position
attribute.
OK, talked over with Jiwon and the room here at the sprint and the preference was to keep it as-is. Reasons were it allowed the position in the signature to be kept with the object (and thus not be reliant on the Signature object to know its position in the actual output), and the possibility of disparate types being in the attribute. Plus Guido preferred the original way. =)
-Brett
_______________________________________________ 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
