At 06:28 PM 3/19/2007 +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >Phillip J. Eby schrieb: > > Actually, he asked first if we *want* him to make one, and my answer to > > that is above: I don't think it's necessary. Like Martin, I believe we > are > > within sight of a consensus. And I think that's better for Python and > > Python-Dev than dragging Guido into it. > >I apparently missed your specific alternative proposal (I assume it is >not "revert" anymore?)
In general, I support the keyword argument approach, as in the patch you referred to. Specifically, however, I would prefer to see it without the warning and future change, as I don't think it provides any real benefit. Either way, some people will have to use a keyword to get what they want, so making a change seems unnecessary. However, if we have to change something in a future version, I would suggest we make that option a required argument, on EIBTI grounds. That way, in 2.6 you can simply make it explicit to be 3.x-compatible. And, I think the warning (if any) should be treated as any other 3.x warning. But as I said, I gather that this aspect of the question is the main open issue remaining to be resolved, since you've also expressed support for the keyword approach, as have many others. _______________________________________________ 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
