Message234415
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| 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 | 2015-01-21.00:10:42 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAP7+vJLuvRgGSfgJ7a_xkP6B3j95J6zYJr3NbyxN+NQ-keCg-g@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1421798882.84.0.170081116837.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
SGTM On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Neil Girdhar <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Neil Girdhar added the comment: > > 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? > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292> > _______________________________________ > |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2015-01-21 00:10:42 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + 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, NeilGirdhar, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
| 2015-01-21 00:10:42 | gvanrossum | link | issue2292 messages |
| 2015-01-21 00:10:42 | gvanrossum | create | |