2013/10/8 Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu>: > On 10/8/2013 9:31 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >> 2013/10/8 Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org>: >>> >>> This PEP proposes a backwards-compatible syntax that should >>> permit implementing any builtin in pure Python code. >> >> >> This is rather too strong. You can certainly implement them; you just >> have to implement the argument parsing yourself. Python's >> call/signature syntax is already extremely expressive, and resolving >> call arguments to formal parameters is already a complicated (and >> slow) process. Implementing functions with such strange argument >> semantics is hardly common enough to justify the whole grouping syntax >> proposed in this PEP. -1 to that. I think I can live with "/", but >> YANGTNI still. > > > I am for having a way to succintly properly describe the signature of C in > the manual and docstrings and help output. As it is now, the only safe thing > to do, without trial and exception, is to assume positional only unless one > knows otherwise. Having a nice syntax for the docs is quite different from implementing it in the language. -- Regards, Benjamin
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