[Python-Dev] PEP 457: Syntax For Positional-Only Parameters

[Joao S. O. Bueno]

I am -1 for the optional parameters and grouping stuff -
no need to make complicated stuff easier to do  just because "range" semantics
is strange to start with.
(And one can implement a range-like funciton explictly parsing
the parameters if needed be.)

As for the "/" delimiting positional only parameters - I think it would
be nice to have. -but just that - mandatory positional only parameters.

Apart from that, I could not figure if the PEP covers a situation where the name
of a positional-only parameter is passed in as a kwarg -

def a([b],/,**kw):
   print (b)

does calling "a(b=5)" should raise a TypeError, or put "5" in
"""kw["b"]""" and leave
"b" as "undefined" ?

   js
 -><-



On 8 October 2013 22:31, Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> wrote:
> 2013/10/8 Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org>:
>> This PEP proposes a backwards-compatible syntax that should
>> permit implementing any builtin in pure Python code.
>
> This is rather too strong. You can certainly implement them; you just
> have to implement the argument parsing yourself. Python's
> call/signature syntax is already extremely expressive, and resolving
> call arguments to formal parameters is already a complicated (and
> slow) process. Implementing functions with such strange argument
> semantics is hardly common enough to justify the whole grouping syntax
> proposed in this PEP. -1 to that. I think I can live with "/", but
> YANGTNI still.
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Benjamin
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/jsbueno%40python.org.br