[Python-Dev] PEP needed for http://bugs.python.org/issue9232 ?
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
chris.barker at noaa.gov
Tue Aug 11 17:31:57 CEST 2015
> there's been enough debate that I suspect we need a
> I think we might just need another round of discussion here.
Please no :-)
Looking back at the previous discussion, it looked like it's all been
said, and there was almost unanimous approval (with some key mild
disapproval) for the idea, so what we need now is a pronouncement.
If it's unclear whether consensus was close, then folks that are
strongly against should speak up now. If there is a flurry of those,
then a PEP is in order. But another big long unstructured discussion
won't be useful.
> I'm +1 myself. Granted there haven't been many times I've wanted it
> (functions with enough arguments to want to make it easy to add and
> remove elements are a bit of a code smell), but I have wanted it (and
> even used the form that is accepted) several times. On the other hand,
> the number of times when the detection of a trailing comma has revealed
> a missing argument to me (Raymond's objection) has been...well, I'm
> pretty sure it is zero. Especially since it only happens *sometimes*.
> Since backward compatibility says we shouldn't disallow it where it is
> currently allowed, the only logical thing to do, IMO, is consistently
> allow it.
> (If you wanted to fix an 'oops' trailing comma syntax issue, I'd vote for
> disallowing trailing commas outside of (). The number of times I've
> ended up with an unintentional tuple after converting a dictionary to a
> series of assignments outnumbers both of the above :) Note, I am *not*
> suggesting doing this!)
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/chris.barker%40noaa.gov
More information about the Python-Dev