On 10/08/2013 08:09 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 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. It would be nice, however, to have it implemented at some point. -- ~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