RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 3 23:08:07 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046761.html

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:24:13 +0100, Paul Moore <pf_moore at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Should this go into 2.4a2? It's marked as "accepted" in the PEP list,
> and an implementation exists as SF patch 941881.

Paul,

Without comment on the merits of the PEP, it seems out of date to me. 
The PEP presents three different implementations of curry (one in
Pyrex) without clarifying which one is the preferred one.  It presents
a summary at the end that would make more sense at the beginning.

I would revise the PEP to:

1. Clearly describe what is being implemented for 2.4.  Provide a
specification for the behavior along with examples of use.  Make sure
you cover all the corner cases, e.g. can you provide a keyword arg
without providing positional args.

2. Provide a rationale for why this belongs in the standard library.

3. Describe the @ syntax, but put it in a self-contained section and
explain why it was not implemented.

Jeremy

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-August/046761.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 309 (partial function application)