Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I've used a double leading underscore on the name. Works great for methods!
We discussed that. My main issue with that is that it's possible/likely
that all arguments should be positional by default, should they all then
begin with underscores? Makes for ugly function
Terry Reedy wrote:
> You could discourage name use by not documenting the actual, internal name
> of the parameters.
The issue we had was that the name wasn't documented at all, the users
simply looked at the code and began using the keyword name. This may
well be an area where "we're all adul
I've used a double leading underscore on the name. Works great for methods!
On 5/2/06, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Benji York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I've not followed the PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments) discussion
> > closely enough to
"Benji York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I've not followed the PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments) discussion
> closely enough to know if this has been mentioned, but we were
> discussing a need at work today for the ability to enforce position-only
> arguments.
Y
I've not followed the PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments) discussion
closely enough to know if this has been mentioned, but we were
discussing a need at work today for the ability to enforce position-only
arguments.
The specific instance was an argument that was intended to be used as a
positional a
