On 20 January 2018 at 07:49, Mario Corchero <mariocj89 at gmail.com> wrote: > I am happy to put some work into this (and Pablo Galindo in CC offered to > pair on it) but it is not clear for me whether the next step is drafting a > new PEP or this is just blocked on "re-evaluating" the current one. I think that would be a question for Larry, since there are two main options here: - proposing just the "/" part of PEP 457 (which allows positional-only arguments, but doesn't allow the expression of all builtin and standard library signatures) - proposing the full PEP 547, including the "argument groups" feature (which is a bigger change, but allows the expression of signatures like "range([start,] stop, [step,] /)") One key benefit I'd see to a new subset-of-457 PEP is that it would allow a decision to be made on the basic "/" proposal without deciding one way or the other on whether or not to provide a native way to express signatures like the one for range(). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
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