RetroSearch Browse

Wed Oct 9 17:11:25 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129325.html

2013/10/9 Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org>:
> On 10/09/2013 04:24 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
> My proposed syntax is a little complex--but complex is better than
> complicated and inconsistent and undocumented and inconvenient, which is
> what we have now.
>
> Certainly the argument conventions of these functions are not
> undocumented, so wonder what is. Also, inconvenient for what? What
> inconsistency problem does this PEP solve?
>
>
> Whether or not a particular function accepts keyword arguments is
> undocumented.  I have in the past been inconvenienced by this not being
> clear.  The documentation uses two approaches for documenting option groups,
> effectively at random, which is inconsistent.

I suppose the question is whether people will find it easier to learn
your syntax for documenting it, or just relearning it for particular
functions whenever they attempt to use a kwarg for a position
argument. I don't expect it will show up on many functions.

-- 
Regards,
Benjamin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-October/129325.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 457: Syntax For Positional-Only Parameters