On 10/08/2013 09:55 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > 2013/10/8 Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us>: >> 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. > > Why? It's quite complex and hardly useful. Hmmm...... Let me get back to you on that. ;) -- ~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