Larry Hastings added the comment: > There is a way using *args and **kwds but that isn't any fun
That's why, earlier, I said a "sensible" signature. Every function *could* get the signature "(*args, **kwargs)" but this imparts no useful semantic information. > What I would like to see in the future is better support > for optional arguments in PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeyword It sounds to me like you're proposing adding "nullable int" support to PyArg_ParseTuple*. I'm not going to; I see Argument Clinic as the way forward, and I'm adding it there instead. In general I'd rather see work go into AC than into PyArg_ParseTuple*. I think PyArg_ParseTuple* is already too complicated, and using AC gives the function a signature for free. My hope is to increase the value proposition of AC so much that everyone agrees with me and we deprecate (but don't remove!) PyArg_ParseTuple*. :D > changing repeat() in way that no one currently needs smacks of having > the tail wag the dog I concede that nobody (probably) needs a workable default value for the times argument. But I suggest that giving functions sensible signatures is a worthy goal in its own right, and that the "times=None" semantics will get us there in a reasonable, backwards-compatible way. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19145> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
