On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:51 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> > wrote: > > It seems like the status quo is fine. I wouldn't object to it being > > made more consistent. I would object to removing the existing cases. > > Same here, on all three counts. In one of the projects I'm currently > working on, we've settled on a style that does quite a lot of: > > my_thing = Thing( > foo = Foo(arg1, arg2, ...), > bar = Bar(arg3, arg4, ...), > ... > ) > > and I've found the trailing comma very convenient during refactoring > and API experimentation. (There's still good fun to be had arguing > about the indentation of that closing parenthesis, though.) > Another valid use case that occurred to me is building up a string-keyed dictionary: mapping = dict( x=1, y=2, z=3, ) So, on reflection, removing the existing cases where it is supported is certainly unreasonable, which makes the consistency argument that much stronger. For the record, I reopened issue #9232 (noting the lack of consensus), and (as someone suggested on the tracker) changed the resolution on the other one to be as a duplicate of #9232. Cheers, Nick. P.S. As I noted in the logging discussion, my email access is going to be a bit sketchy for the next couple of weeks. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101214/7100b7b1/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4