Why python doesn't use syntax like function(, , x) for default parameters?
apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Mon Mar 13 10:33:39 CET 2006
Op 2006-03-10, Diez B. Roggisch schreef <deets at nospam.web.de>:
>> Those default values are not 0 and <size-of-sequence>, you may have
>> only experience with situations where they behave as such but that
>> is not the same.
> Well, it might be - but the conceptual behavior is (usually) the same.
>> If you need to know these values then you will need to know them
>> just as much when a keyword is used or when the default values
>> are used later. Calling
>> f(3) or f(arg5=3)
>> Will give you no more a clue about the missing default values
>> than calling
>> At least in the last call you are given a clue about missing
> I didn't argue against that - I don't like the proposal, but I'm pretty
> sure that it won't be accepted in any way whatsoever so I don't bother.
You argued that f(,,3) would somehow be hard to figure out.
> I just wanted to point out that you proclaim false evidence for a similar
> situation already being part of python, and that thus the f(,,1) syntax was
I didn't claim that the f(,,1) syntax was justified. I asked for an
explanation about why something like f(,,3) would be hard to figure
More information about the Python-list