Raymond Hettinger added the comment: Larry, ISTM that you are bulldozing your way through something that isn't an actual problem to be solved.
> I can see why you'd think this was a waste of time. I don't think it is just a waste of time; I think it is a bad idea. You have a very strong notion of how function signatures should look (i.e. the number of arguments being irrelevant) and you want to impose your ideas on existing, stable APIs for zero benefit. > I view giving all builtins in Python valid signatures > as a worthwhile goal unto itself. I can already model the behavior of repeat() using *args and **kwds, just like I can for int(), list.pop(), range(), and slice(). You don't seem to get that those tools already work, that people understand them, that they've been stable for a long time, and that they don't need to change for any reason other than that you've worked yourself into a snit about it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20341> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
