>> Imagine if I said something other totally irrelevant and that is bigger >> change indeed. But I didn't. I suggested not a change of CPython or PyPy or >> IronPython but a few sentences in a PEP. I also didn't suggest that it be >> snuck into the same PEP as my proposed syntax changes. I agree that would be >> bad. It should obviously be a separate PEP. >> > > I'm not sure what you're calling irrelevant here. But sure. If you > want to propose that, propose it. Start a new thread in which you > propose that, as a language feature, kwargs are allowed to be invalid > variable names.
But wouldn't it make sense to have a motivating example? Like the one we're discussing? Not just suggest it out of the blue? > You're proposing a change to the language specification, > and that's not something to just gloss over. Many people are suggesting language spec changes in this thread and quite a few others. This is the forum for it. > When PEP 572 started proposing changes to other semantics than just > assignment expressions, there was a lot of pushback because that was > seen as an independent proposal (even though it was fairly tightly > bound to the assignment expressions themselves, in that it'd be > extremely hard to observe the difference else). What you're proposing > here is, similarly, a completely independent proposal, and not all > that tightly bound. Sure. But I'm only proposing it in the "what if?" way. It's a discussion to see what other solutions exists for the problem that the thread started discussing. A You and me keep derailing. It's quite depressing. I don't want to be in a constant shouting game with you. I want to discuss ideas. / Anders _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
