RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 18 00:14:55 EST 2018 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-January/151809.html

On 18 January 2018 at 03:16, Sanyam Khurana <sanyam.khurana01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:04 PM, Victor Stinner
> <victor.stinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems like a PEP is needed.
>
> I followed the threads mentioned above, which led me to PEP 457:
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0457/
>
> I didn't find a clear indication if it was still to be modified,
> approved or rejected. Can anyone help?

Effectively deferred, since Guido decided we didn't need a PEP for the
__text_signature__ syntax in the inspect module:

    >>> import inspect
    >>> inspect.signature(ord)
    <Signature (c, /)>
    >>> ord.__text_signature__
    '($module, c, /)'

(The motivation was to give Argument Clinic a way to communicate C
level signatures up to Python code)

A PEP for Python level positional-only argument syntax would be able
to rely on Signature.__repr__ and __text_signature__ as precedent for
using "/" to indicate that the preceding parameters are
positional-only, though.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2018-January/151809.html below:

[Python-Dev] Positional-only parameters in Python