On 2012-06-19, at 10:06 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2012-06-19, at 9:22 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: >> >>> On 2012-06-19, at 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> >>>> 2. The constructor for Parameter objects should require that names for >>>> positional-only parameters start with "<" and end with ">" to ensure >>>> they can always be distinguished from standard parameters in signature >>>> string representations and in BoundArguments.parameters >>> >>> +1 >> >> Actually, can we just make positional-only parameters to render brackets >> in their/Signature's __str__ methods? I think Parameter.kind should be >> enough, without adding additional obstacles. > > True, the check for name clashes in Signature (and the implied numeric > "names") will cover the BoundArguments.parameters case
Nick, I also would like to keep Parameter.name being required. I understand that *currently* we have no parameter names specified for builtin methods, but we don't have any mechanisms to introspect them too. Now, in 3.3 (I hope) we introduce a brand new mechanism, and, probably, in 3.4 we have way to define Signatures for builtins. Why not do it right? This whole positional-only case is just a weird anachronism of CPython. - Yury _______________________________________________ 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
