On 10/09/2013 11:46 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Generally, it needs to be a bit clearer that the intent of the PEP
isn't to say "let's do this", it's to be explicit that acceptance of
the Argument Clinic PEP severely constrains the design space for
possible solutions if we ever *did* implement Python level support for
positional only arguments.
Can you suggest an edit that would make you happy?
- parameters in optional groups should just have an implied "=None"
that can be overriden if desired.
No no no! You can't have a default value, and you definitely couldn't
use None.
range() decides what its arguments mean based on how many arguments it
receives. If I understand your proposal correctly, you suggest that
range(None, 5)
would return the same result as
range(5)
But that's simply not how it works.
If you want to propose changing the semantics of range, go ahead, I'll
stand back.
- a simpler variant that omits the grouping support and only allows
optional parameters on the right should also be reserved
If that syntax is a subset of this syntax, and this syntax is reserved,
then by extension we would automatically reserve that syntax too. In
any other circumstance (this PEP is rejected, the simpler variant uses a
different syntax) the simpler syntax should get a new PEP.
I'll just say that that syntax is insufficient to implement existing
functions we all know and love (addch, range).
- explicitly delegate to the argument clinic PEP for the impact on
inspect.Signature
I'd actually rather do it the other way 'round. This PEP is a better
place for it. Even though I think the Clinic PEP has a higher chance of
being accepted ;-)
//arry/
_______________________________________________
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
