Message234414
| Author | NeilGirdhar |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Jeff.Kaufman, Joshua.Landau, NeilGirdhar, Rosuav, SpaghettiToastBook, andybuckley, belopolsky, berker.peksag, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, paul.moore, pconnell, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, twouters, zbysz |
| Date | 2015-01-21.00:08:02 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1421798882.84.0.170081116837.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
That makes sense.
If you wanted to override, you could always write:
f(**{**a, **b, 'x': 5})
rather than
f(**a, **b, x=5)
Should I go ahead and fix it so that overriding is always wrong? E.g.,
f(**{'x': 3}, **{'x': 4})
which currently works? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-01-21 00:08:02 | NeilGirdhar | set | recipients: + NeilGirdhar, gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, paul.moore, ncoghlan, belopolsky, giampaolo.rodola, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, andybuckley, r.david.murray, zbysz, eric.snow, Rosuav, berker.peksag, Joshua.Landau, pconnell, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
| 2015-01-21 00:08:02 | NeilGirdhar | set | messageid: <1421798882.84.0.170081116837.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2015-01-21 00:08:02 | NeilGirdhar | link | issue2292 messages |
| 2015-01-21 00:08:02 | NeilGirdhar | create | |