2013/10/8 Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us>: > On 10/08/2013 08:09 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >> 2013/10/8 Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu>: >>> >>> On 10/8/2013 9:31 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/10/8 Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This PEP proposes a backwards-compatible syntax that should >>>>> permit implementing any builtin in pure Python code. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is rather too strong. You can certainly implement them; you just >>>> have to implement the argument parsing yourself. Python's >>>> call/signature syntax is already extremely expressive, and resolving >>>> call arguments to formal parameters is already a complicated (and >>>> slow) process. Implementing functions with such strange argument >>>> semantics is hardly common enough to justify the whole grouping syntax >>>> proposed in this PEP. -1 to that. I think I can live with "/", but >>>> YANGTNI still. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am for having a way to succintly properly describe the signature of C >>> in >>> the manual and docstrings and help output. As it is now, the only safe >>> thing >>> to do, without trial and exception, is to assume positional only unless >>> one >>> knows otherwise. >> >> >> Having a nice syntax for the docs is quite different from implementing >> it in the language. > > > It would be nice, however, to have it implemented at some point.
Why? It's quite complex and hardly useful. -- Regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
