On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: > I don't have strong feelings about this, but to me the fact that there > are values of the individual parameters that if they occur on the same > object at the same time would be invalid is a code smell. If the thing > can be one and only one of a list of possible types, it makes sense to > me that this be indicated as a single attribute with a list of possible > values, rather than a set of boolean options, one for each type. > > For the attribute error issue, we could have module attributes that give > names to the strings: > > if parameter.kind == inspect.VARARG_KIND: > stuff > > Or if we don't want that in the stdlib, the individual programmer who > cares about it can define their own constants. On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > I agree with Benjamin, it goes against TOOWTDI without enough of a > justification to break the rule. Just make the strings constants on the > Parameter class and you solve the lack of enum issue. +1 -eric
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