On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 12:09:54PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> > Please read what I said again, because that's a mischaracterisation of
> > what I said.
>
> I don't think it is. You said 'it ought to be something "like" an
> expression', and then that actually being an expression is not essential.
> How is it unfair to rephrase that as "something that looks like an
> expression even if it isn't"?
I don't *require* it to look like an expression when it's not. What I
said was that it should look like an expression *rather than a mode*.
But whatever -- if you want to stick with your wording, I'm not going to
argue that point any further. There are more important things to
discuss. Namely your side-note:
> > > Side note: what does this mean in your proposal? I'm guessing it's a
> > > SyntaxError?
> > >
> > > foo(a, b, **{u, v}, c, d)
> >
> > Yes, because we still have a restriction that positional arguments come
> > before keyword arguments. If that restriction is ever relaxed, then this
> > may become legal.
> >
>
> So, as Dominik pointed out, why keep this restriction?
Because that's the conservative choice that doesn't lock out future
language development unnecessarily.
Today, we allow positional unpacking after keyword arguments:
func(a, b=1, c=2, *args)
Perhaps some day we will want to allow regular positional arguments
after keywords too. If we don't *need* to rule that out, why do so
unnecessarily?
All else being equal, we should prefer the syntax that doesn't rule out
future development.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/WW7BRWULC33PH7YKWABHDHFOJKIYMQXQ/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
