Op vr 7 sep. 2018 om 04:49 schreef Anders Hovmöller <bo...@killingar.net>:
> > Maybe something like this would be better: >> >> f(=a, =b, =c) >> > > Haha. Look at my PEP, it's under "rejected alternative syntax", because of > the super angry replies I got on this very mailing list when I suggested > this syntax a few years ago :P > > I think that syntax is pretty nice personally, but me and everyone at work > I've discussed this with think that f(*, a, b, c) syntax is even nicer > since it mirrors "def f(*, a, b, c)" so nicely. Most replies to my new > syntax has been along the lines of "seems obvious" and "ooooh" :P > I must say I like the idea of being able to write it the way you propose. Sometimes we make a function only to be called once at a specific location, more because of factoring out some functions for clarity. Been doing that myself lately for scripting, and I think it'd increase clarity. However, it's really alike to f(a, b, c), which does something totally different. It -might- become something of a newb trap, as myfunc(*, a, b, c) would be 100% equal to myfunc(*, c, a, b) but that's not true for the f(c, a, b) case. I dislike the f(=arg) syntax.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
