Terry Reedy wrote: > On 12/13/2010 2:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:09:02 -0500 >> Alexander Belopolsky<alexander.belopolsky at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Guido van Rossum<guido at python.org> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm at least +0 on >>>> allowing trailing commas in the situation the OP mentioned. >>>> >>> >>> FWIW, I am also about +0.5 on allowing trailing comma. Note that in a >>> similar situation, the C standardization committee has erred on the >>> side of consistency: >>> >>> """ >>> A new feature of C99: a common extension in many implementations >>> allows a trailing comma after the list of enumeration constants. The >>> Committee decided to adopt this feature as an innocuous extension that >>> mirrors the trailing commas allowed in initializers. >>> """ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/C99RationaleV5.10.pdf >>> >>> Similarly, I find allowing trailing comma in keyword only arguments >>> lists to be an innocuous extension that mirrors the trailing commas >>> allowed in the positional arguments lists. >> >> +1 from me as well. Special cases are hard to remember. > > Same here. A strong +1 for a consistent rule (always or never allowed) > with a +1 for always given others use case of one param/arg per line. +1 on consistency. +1 on allowing the trailing comma. ~Ethan~
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