No, I am saying it is important to distinguish between "d[3, 4]" and "d[day=3, detector=4]".  In xarray there can be label-only dimensions, that is dimensions with no corresponding position.  So having all labelled dimensions necessarily mapped onto positional dimensions wouldn't work.  

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 23:26 Guido van Rossum <> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:02 PM Todd <> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:26 PM Stefano Borini <> wrote:
> Suppose we have
>     >>> d[x=1, y=2] = 42
>     >>> d[x=1, y=2]
>     42
> where d is an instance of a suitable class X that has no special knowledge of keywords.

Initially, when I wrote the pep, the idea was that there was no
distinction of kwargs and normal args. Basically the idea was that
currently the only "metainfo" associated to every argument is purely
positional (e.g. the meaning of position 1 is implicit). But index 1
can have a specific semantic meaning (e.g. it could be a day).
So in practice they would be one and the same, just that you add
non-positional semantic meaning to indexes, and you can refer to them
either through the position, or this additional semantic meaning.

In other words, if you claim that the first index is day, and the
second index is detector, somehow, there is no difference between

d[3, 4]
d[day=3, detector=4]
d[detector=4, day=3]

In fact, my initial feeling would be that you can use either one or
the other. You should not be able to mix and match.

the pep went through various revisions, and we came to a possible
proposal, but it's not set in stone.

This would definitely not be sufficient for xarray, which I see as being one of the main users of this syntax.  The whole point is to be able to specify an arbitrary subset labeled dimensions.

Are you saying that for xarray it is important to distinguish between `d[day=3, detector=4]` and `d[detector=4, day=3]`? If we just passed the keyword args to `__getitem__` as an extra `**kwds` argument (which preserves order, since Python 3.6 at least), that should work, right? If not, can you clarify?

--Guido van Rossum (