Imagine if I said something other totally irrelevant and that is bigger change indeed. But I didn't. I suggested not a change of CPython or PyPy or IronPython but a few sentences in a PEP. I also didn't suggest that it be snuck into the same PEP as my proposed syntax changes. I agree that would be bad. It should obviously be a separate PEP.
I'm not sure what you're calling irrelevant here. But sure. If you want to propose that, propose it. Start a new thread in which you propose that, as a language feature, kwargs are allowed to be invalid variable names.
But wouldn't it make sense to have a motivating example? Like the one we're discussing? Not just suggest it out of the blue?
You're proposing a change to the language specification, and that's not something to just gloss over.
Many people are suggesting language spec changes in this thread and quite a few others. This is the forum for it.
When PEP 572 started proposing changes to other semantics than just assignment expressions, there was a lot of pushback because that was seen as an independent proposal (even though it was fairly tightly bound to the assignment expressions themselves, in that it'd be extremely hard to observe the difference else). What you're proposing here is, similarly, a completely independent proposal, and not all that tightly bound.
Sure. But I'm only proposing it in the "what if?" way. It's a discussion to see what other solutions exists for the problem that the thread started discussing. A
You and me keep derailing. It's quite depressing. I don't want to be in a constant shouting game with you. I want to discuss ideas.
/ Anders