Message147630
| Author | eric.snow |
|---|---|
| Recipients | baptiste.carvello, docs@python, eli.bendersky, eric.araujo, eric.smith, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, petri.lehtinen, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2011-11-14.19:51:21 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00015306714 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1321300282.25.0.688847778889.issue13386@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
>> 4) she got annoyed that two completely different notations where used >> for two very close concepts > > This is a good point, and we are trying to move to the arg=default > notation. Unfortunately there are still places that use the old > notation. C functions that have optional arguments but don't accept > keyword arguments are a bit unusual, and IIUC in most of the cases > that's an implementation detail that could be removed. So would it be worth the effort to identify each such place in the built-ins/stdlib and eventually change them all? I've seen support for doing so in other tracker issues and think it's a good idea personally. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-11-14 19:51:22 | eric.snow | set | recipients: + eric.snow, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, eli.bendersky, docs@python, baptiste.carvello, petri.lehtinen |
| 2011-11-14 19:51:22 | eric.snow | set | messageid: <1321300282.25.0.688847778889.issue13386@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-11-14 19:51:21 | eric.snow | link | issue13386 messages |
| 2011-11-14 19:51:21 | eric.snow | create | |