On Dec 13, 1:34 am, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Either way, its not hard to add some detail to the semantics to allow > > all this. Even this function definition: > > > def func(Foo(args), Foo(kwargs)) > > > ...could even be defined unambigiously by overloading first on base > > type, and if that does not uniquely determine the args and kwargs, > > fall back on positionality, so that: > > > def func(Foo(args), dict(kwargs)) > > def func(list(args), Foo(kwargs)) > > > would be uniquely defined as well. > > That solves some of the problems, but if I just have: > > def func(SequenceOrMappingType(args)): > > That's going to unpack positionally. If I want it to unpack keywords > instead, how would I change the definition to indicate that?
That should raise an ambiguity error. But honestly, how often have you worked with SequenceOrMappingType's? I think this is a rather palatable constraint. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
