On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:46 AM Anders Hovmöller <bo...@killingar.net> wrote:
> > > > On 15 May 2019, at 07:51, Jonathan Goble <jcgob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That's not a realistic goal; there are some use cases, including in > > CPython builtins, that cannot be accomplished without positional-only > > arguments. For example, the current behavior of the `dict` constructor > > is to accept both certain iterables as a positional-only argument > > and/or keyword arguments from which a dict can be created. If the > > iterable argument was not positional-only, then it would be forced to > > consume a keyword (even if the caller passes it as a positional > > argument), meaning that that keyword could never be included in > > **kwargs and could not become a dict key via keyword arguments. > > You lost me. How is this not handled by *args and **kwargs? I think it is. > "Positional only" isn't needed in this case. > > > Additionally, PEP 570 [1], which will add syntax for positional-only > > parameters in Python functions, was accepted by Guido last month. > It was actually a decision of the Python steering council, of which Guido is a member and so am I. > > I know and in my opinion it's a big mistake. It adapts python to a > misfeatures of C extension code instead of making the C extentions play > nice end behave like python. There's actually more to it than that (it actually resolves various bugs we had in the stdlib that have nothing to do with C extension modules). The details can be found in the PEP.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
