Thanks very much for your work! I am CC'ing python-dev to see if there are any last calls for PEP 448. Assuming no material objection appear to the new syntax and semantics, I can approve the PEP later this week. To get it committed, you need one of the active committers to give you a code review (waiting for me would mean waiting forever). Maybe Antoine, Benjamin or Victor?
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Neil Girdhar <mistersh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I believe I have finally finished the work on the patch for PEP 448 ( > http://bugs.python.org/issue2292). How do we get the PEP approved? What > else would we need to check it into Python? > > Best, > > Neil > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> > wrote: > >> OK. I don't like arg unpackings after keyword args, for the same reason >> plain positional args aren't allowed after keyword args, but I guess I >> didn't pay attention when it was introduced, so we're stuck with it now, >> it's not the end of the world, and at least the definition is clear >> (collect all positional args first, then handle keyword args). >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Neil Girdhar <mistersh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Okay, so: positional arguments neither follow keyword arguments nor >>> keyword argument unpackings; iterable argument unpackings never follow >>> keyword argument unpackings. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Joshua Landau <jos...@landau.ws> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 January 2015 at 16:38, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: >>>> > The PEP hasn't been accepted yet AFAIK... I'm generally okay with >>>> allowing >>>> > multiple *x things (except in an *unpack* position of course) but I >>>> still >>>> > don't think we should be mixing positional and keyword args. So, no >>>> f(a, >>>> > b=2, c), nor f(a, b=2, *c). >>>> > >>>> >>>> f(a, b=2, *c) is currently legal as both a call and as a definition: >>>> >>>> a, *c = 1, 2, 3 >>>> >>>> def f(*args, **kwargs): >>>> print(args, kwargs) >>>> >>>> f(a, b=2, *c) >>>> #>>> (1, 2, 3) {'b': 2} >>>> >>>> def f(a, b=2, *c): >>>> print(a, b, c) >>>> >>>> f(1, 2, 3) >>>> #>>> 1 2 (3,) >>>> >>>> So I imagine that's staying (or, at least, this PEP isn't removing >>>> it). I don't think anyone is (yet) arguing for f(a, b=2, c). >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Python-ideas mailing list >>>> python-id...@python.org >>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>> Google Groups "python-ideas" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/python-ideas/J99EFY1D1nI/unsubscribe. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>> python-ideas+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Python-ideas mailing list >>> python-id...@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >> > > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
