On 21 Jan 2014 13:49, "Larry Hastings" wrote:
>
> On 01/20/2014 03:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> Please turn the question around and look at it with your release manager
hat on rather than your creator of Argument Clinic hat: if I came to you
and said I wanted to add a new public API to the ins
On 01/20/2014 03:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Please turn the question around and look at it with your release
manager hat on rather than your creator of Argument Clinic hat: if I
came to you and said I wanted to add a new public API to the inspect
module after the second beta release, what wou
On 21 Jan 2014 09:26, "Larry Hastings" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/20/2014 04:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> When I wrote that, I was thinking we had made
>> inspect.Signature.__repr__ produce a nice string format, but then I
>> noticed in the REPL today that we never got around to doing that - I
>> th
On 01/20/2014 04:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
When I wrote that, I was thinking we had made
inspect.Signature.__repr__ produce a nice string format, but then I
noticed in the REPL today that we never got around to doing that - I
think because we didn't know how to handle positional-only arguments
On 21 Jan 2014 06:26, "Terry Reedy" wrote:
>
> On 1/20/2014 7:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
>> However, while I know you're keen to finally make introspection work
>> for all C level callables in 3.4, even the ones with signatures that
>> can't be expressed as Python function signatures, I'd like t
On 1/20/2014 7:59 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
However, while I know you're keen to finally make introspection work
for all C level callables in 3.4, even the ones with signatures that
can't be expressed as Python function signatures, I'd like to strongly
encourage you to hold off on that last part u
Larry, Nick,
On January 20, 2014 at 8:00:35 AM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Your proposal gets a "no, absolutely not" vote from me.
>
> 1. We already have a notion of "optional parameters". Parameters
> with default values are optional.
> 2. Your proposed syntax doesn't mentio
On 20 January 2014 20:16, Larry Hastings wrote:
>
>
> On 01/19/2014 08:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Guido, Larry and I thrashed out the required semantics for parameter groups
> at PyCon US last year (and I believe the argument clinic PEP describes those
> accurately).
>
> They're mainly needed
On 01/19/2014 08:30 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Guido, Larry and I thrashed out the required semantics for parameter
groups at PyCon US last year (and I believe the argument clinic PEP
describes those accurately).
They're mainly needed to represent oddball signatures like range() and
slice().
Guido, Larry and I thrashed out the required semantics for parameter groups
at PyCon US last year (and I believe the argument clinic PEP describes
those accurately).
They're mainly needed to represent oddball signatures like range() and
slice().
However, I'm inclined to say that the affected func
In the midst of work on the issue #17481, it became apparent that we needÂ
a way of specifying optional/grouped parameters.
One good example of grouped parameters in python is the `type` function.
Basically, it has two different signatures:
* type(name, bases, dict)
* type(object)
Which we can
11 matches
Mail list logo
