On 10/08/2013 09:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
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.
Hmmm...... Let me get back to you on that. ;)
--
~Ethan~
_______________________________________________
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
