RetroSearch Browse

Tue Dec 9 08:25:40 EST 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/040837.html

On 9 Dec 2003, at 9:21, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> in my experience, you always lose your audience when you introduce the
> callable(*args, **kwargs) syntax, and you don't get them back until you
> explain that the notion is apply(callable, args, kwargs).

This is a good point.

For most other language constructs that we have considered dropping the
new construct was more readable than the old one (think repr() versus 
backticks)
but for this one that isn't true: apply() is much more readable than 
the * and **
notation in some situations.

In other situations the * notation is much easier, I really don't want 
to
write callable(1, a=2, *args, **kwargs) in apply notation anymore. But 
still
apply is easy to understand for easy cases.
--
Jack Jansen        <Jack.Jansen at cwi.nl>        http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma 
Goldman

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-December/040837.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: Source-level backward compatibility requirements -logging and apply()