On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:09:34 +1200, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > So, there's a patch on issue 9232 - allow trailing commas in function > definitions - but there's been enough debate that I suspect we need a > PEP. > > Would love it if someone could correct me, but I'd like to be able to > either categorically say 'no' and close the ticket, or 'yes and this > is what needs to happen next'.
I think we might just need another round of discussion here. I'm +1 myself. Granted there haven't been many times I've wanted it (functions with enough arguments to want to make it easy to add and remove elements are a bit of a code smell), but I have wanted it (and even used the form that is accepted) several times. On the other hand, the number of times when the detection of a trailing comma has revealed a missing argument to me (Raymond's objection) has been...well, I'm pretty sure it is zero. Especially since it only happens *sometimes*. Since backward compatibility says we shouldn't disallow it where it is currently allowed, the only logical thing to do, IMO, is consistently allow it. (If you wanted to fix an 'oops' trailing comma syntax issue, I'd vote for disallowing trailing commas outside of (). The number of times I've ended up with an unintentional tuple after converting a dictionary to a series of assignments outnumbers both of the above :) Note, I am *not* suggesting doing this!) --David _______________________________________________ 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
