<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Greg Ewing <<a href="mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz">greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Thomas Wouters wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Greg Ewing <<a href="mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz">greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz</a><br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz">greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> >>>>*a, b, c = a, b, *c<br>
><br>
> +0 on allowing * in other than the last position.<br>
><br>
> The left-hand side of all this is already in. Only the rhs is new.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm worried that allowing things like<br>
<br>
x = a, b, *c, d, *e, f<br>
<br>
is going to make people want to do this in a function<br>
call as well. Does your patch permit that, or only<br>
when constructing a tuple?<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>The patch does not, yet. Guido did ask that it would work. (To be precise, he asked for 'f(*a, b, c)' to be valid, but it only makes sense to allow, say, 'f(*a, b, *c)' too, and he hasn't said 'no' to that.) However, the grammar for functiondefinitions and -calls is entirely separate from the other unpacking contexts, and modifying the grammer is hard; I'm not done with it yet.<br>
<br></div></div>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!