On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:15:32AM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 2:48 AM Steven D'Aprano <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:10:21PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And notice that there is absolutely no difficulty with some future
> > > > enhancement to allow positional arguments after keyword arguments.
[...]
> > I have an actual, concrete possible enhancement in mind: relaxing the
> > restriction on parameter order.
> >
>
> What? Do you think that the current restriction is bad, and we should just
> drop it? Why?
No, I have no opinion at the moment on whether we should relax that
restriction. I'm saying that the mode-shift suggestion:
func(arg, name=value,
*, # change to auto-fill mode
alpha, beta, gamma,
)
will rule out any further relaxation on that restriction, and that is a
point against it. That's a concrete enhancement that we might allow some
time. Whether *I personally* want that enhancement is irrelevant.
You on the other hand, claim that my suggestion:
func(arg, name=value,
**{alpha, beta, gamma},
)
will also rule out some unspecified, unknown, unimagined future
enhancements. I'm saying that's a weak argument, unless you have a
specific enhancement in mind.
Note what I am **not** doing: I'm not saying that your bare star
argument suggestion is bad because it will rule out using a bare star
argument for some other purpose. I'm saying that it will rule out
another language change which people may, or may not, prefer in the
future.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EG2WG7NSVLF7A5CI3C54KUGHMJTJIVO6/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
