RetroSearch Browse

Mon Mar 18 12:05:52 CET 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-March/124734.html

larry.hastings <python-checkins at python.org> wrote:
> +    Establishes that all the *proceeding* arguments are
> +    positional-only.  For now, Argument Clinic does not
> +    support functions with both positional-only and
> +    non-positional-only arguments; therefore, if ``/``
> +    is specified for a function, currently it must always
> +    be after the last parameter.  Also, Argument Clinic
> +    does not currently support default values for
> +    positional-only parameters.
> +
> +(The semantics of ``/`` follow a syntax for positional-only
> +parameters in Python once proposed by Guido. [5]_ )

I think the entire PEP would be easier to understand if the main sections
only contained the envisaged end result and all current preprocessor
deficiencies were listed in a single isolated section.

Stefan Krah

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-March/124734.html below:

[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Update for 436, explicitly supporting positional parameters forever, amen.