On 4/14/2015 2:14 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Also, why do you think we added the 'lone star' syntax? :-)
Hint: Not because Guido is from Texas
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
U
Also, why do you think we added the 'lone star' syntax? :-)
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/opt
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:56 PM Alexander Walters
wrote:
> Lacking anything anyone else says... the use case for keyword only
> arguments (where they actually make the code better rather than simply
> being different) is rather limited.
>
> I disagree. For parameters not often passed or beyond 3
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:40:32 -0400
Larry Hastings wrote:
> On 04/14/2015 01:56 PM, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> > But newer parts of stdlib, e.g. asyncio, visibly overuse kw-only
> > args.
>
> Overuse? asyncio? You mean "that thing Guido just wrote last
> year"? The most practical definiti
On 04/14/2015 01:40 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
that you'd likely never want to pass just "True", but that
"numeric
On 04/14, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
> "stdlib APIs shouldn't contain keyword-only params", I'm inclined to
> make numeric_owner keyword-only.
os.path and
On 04/14/2015 02:11 PM, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
>>> code. Is there some position we've taken on this?
If you’re introducing a new parameter that is a boolean, making it kw-only is
generally accepted. Some people (myself included) would encourage you to do so.
Besides asyncio, there are already new arguments that are kw-only in many
modules, including configparser, unittest, xml.etree, xmlrpc, ur
I personally find that keyword only arguments make for nicer APIS. It also
makes subclassing easier because you are free to add new positional
arguments later. Especially for boolean arguments, I think keyword only is
a great API choice.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>
Hello,
On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:40:40 -0400
"Eric V. Smith" wrote:
> I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile
> methods (http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
>
> In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I
> agree that you'd likely never want to pass j
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
>> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
>> "stdlib APIs shouldn't
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> But, I don't see a lot of keyword-only parameters being added to stdlib
> code. Is there some position we've taken on this? Barring someone saying
> "stdlib APIs shouldn't contain keyword-only params", I'm inclined to
> make numeric_
Lacking anything anyone else says... the use case for keyword only
arguments (where they actually make the code better rather than simply
being different) is rather limited.
On 4/14/2015 13:40, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http:
At least asyncio uses keyword-only intensively.
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
> (http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
>
> In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
> tha
I'm working on adding a numeric_owner parameter to some tarfile methods
(http://bugs.python.org/issue23193),
In a review, Berker suggested making the parameter keyword-only. I agree
that you'd likely never want to pass just "True", but that
"numeric_owner=True" would be a better usage.
But, I don
15 matches
Mail list logo
