>> -1. I think there should be a Python-oriented introduction to sockets.
>> You may have complaints about the specific wording of the text, but
>> please understand that these are probably irrelevant to most
>> first-time readers of this text. My observation is that people actually
>> don't read t
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> Currently,
>
> def f(*, kw, **kwargs): pass
>
> is valid syntax, but
>
> def f(*args, *, kw): pass
>
> is not.
>
> I don't see any mention of it in the PEP but perhaps there is a good
> reason this isn't allowed. It seems to be perfectly
Currently,
def f(*, kw, **kwargs): pass
is valid syntax, but
def f(*args, *, kw): pass
is not.
I don't see any mention of it in the PEP but perhaps there is a good
reason this isn't allowed. It seems to be perfectly well-defined to
me.
--
Regards,
Benjamin
___
Antoine Pitrou:
> So what you're saying is that the text is mostly useless (or at least
> quite dispensable), but you think it's fine that people waste their
> time trying to read it?
I found it useful when starting to write socket code. Later on I
learnt more but, as an introduction, this doc
Hello,
On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:20:29 +0200
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I would like to suggest that we remove the socket HOWTO (currently at
> > http://docs.python.org/dev/howto/sockets.html)
>
> -1. I think there should be a Python-oriented introduction to sockets.
> You may have complaints ab
