Leif Walsh wrote:

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Zaur Shibzoukhov wrote:

...

Would be desirable to allow two equivalent forms of calling syntax in python:

<caller>(, )

and

<caller>(, )

?

I think you are talking about PEP 3102: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3102/

I don't think so. This PEP does not affect the syntax for calling a function.

Georg Brandl wrote:

Bruce Frederiksen schrieb:

...

Leif Walsh wrote:

...

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Zaur Shibzoukhov wrote:

...

Would be desirable to allow two equivalent forms of calling syntax in python:

<caller>(, )

and

<caller>(, )

?

I think you are talking about PEP 3102: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3102/

I don't think so. This PEP does not affect the syntax for calling a function.

It does, in that you can do

foo(*args, flag=True)

which is currently a SyntaxError.

However, exchanging poisitional and keyword arguments is not in the scope of the PEP, and isn't likely to have any future at all -- it's just too ambiguous when the called object has named arguments instead of a catch-all *args in its signature.

Correct. However, to address the OP's question, do this instead: foo = \ Foo(x=1, y=2, [Foo( x=4, y=5, [Foo(x=3,y=4), Foo(x=5,y=6))] )] ) Or, have Foo() return a callable: foo = \ Foo(x=1, y=2)( Foo(x=4, y=5)( Foo(x=3,y=4)(), Foo(x=5,y=6)()) ) ) Or any number of other variations... -- Talin

Georg