On 2012-06-22, at 3:47 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Yury Selivanov
>> <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-22, at 3:18 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Yury Selivanov
>>>> <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I meant optional. Would 'name(arg1, *, [arg2])' be better?
>>>> Hardly, because that's not valid syntax. I'd write name(arg1, *,
>>>> arg2=<default>).
>>> Like
>>>
>>> replace(*, name=<default>, kind=<default>, default=<default>,
>>> annotation=<default>) -> Parameter
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> replace(*, name=<optional>, kind=<optional>, default=<optional>,
>>> annotation=<optional>) -> Parameter
>> Either one's an improvement, but you'll have to explain at the top of
>> the PEP what you intend this notation to mean. I'd go with <optional>
>> since the key thing here seems to be that various keywords, when not
>> specified, mean that nothing changes. OTOH in some places you can
>> probably write "foo=Signature.empty" (etc.).
>
> Parameter names that follow '*' in the signature are not optional (unless
> that has changed since 3.2). In other words, the above signature requires
> that name, kind, default, and annotation be specified by name *and* be given
> values when replace is called)
I know. Those are optional keyword-only arguments.
In the code:
def replace(self, *, name=_void, kind=_void, annotation=_void,
default=_void):
We just need some clear convention for the PEP - and the <optional>
mark should work.
-
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
