data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6a9ad/6a9ad89a7f4504fbd33d703f493bf92e3c0cc9a9" alt=""
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:23:29PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:04 AM Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Alex Hall wrote:
Sorry, what? How is there any doubt that the arguments being passed are dunder, invert, private, meta, and ignorecase? They're right there.
That tells us the meaning of the arguments in the *caller's* context.
[...] it is critical to know the callee's context, i.e. the parameters those arguments get bound to.
Now, which parameters those arguments are bound to is less obvious, but:
Steven, what happened above? Immediately after your objection ends, you quoted me handling that objection. It feels like you're not reading what I say.
Trust me Alex, I am reading what you say. What I don't know is whether you mean what you say, because frankly I think your position that the caller of a function doesn't need to care too much, if at all, about the parameters their arguments are applied to (except under special circumstances, such as when reading the source code of the function), is so obviously wrong that I don't understand why you are standing by it. This thread is long enough, so I'm not going to drag it out further with more tedious "but you said..." quotes. I'm sticking with my response, you are welcome to stick with yours, let's move on. -- Steven