Message235031
Is it possible to edit the PEP to reflect the current design decisions?
Specifically:
* Remove: "Because of the new levity for * and ** unpackings, it may be advisable to lift some or all of these restrictions." (in both abstract and specification)
* Extend: "Currently duplicate arguments raise TypeError. This remains true for duplicate arguments provided through multiple keyword argument unpackings, e.g. f(**{'x': 2}, **{'x': 3})
* Add some examples of dictionary overriding to the list of examples:
>>> {'x': 1, **{'x': 2}}
{'x': 2}
>>> {**{'x': 2}, 'x': 1}
{'x': 1}
* Remove "if the restrictions are kept" (they are)
* Remove "If they are removed completely..."
* In disadvantages, remove "if the current are kept" (they are). Don't write "* unpackings", write "iterable unpackings"
* Remove "if the current restrictions are lifted"
* Remove "Implementation" section (it's done!)
* Add to specification: "f(*x for x in it) and f(**x for x in it)" remain SyntaxErrors. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2015-01-30 11:54:16 | NeilGirdhar | set | recipients:
+ NeilGirdhar, gvanrossum, twouters, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, paul.moore, ncoghlan, belopolsky, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, andybuckley, r.david.murray, zbysz, eric.snow, berker.peksag, Joshua.Landau, pconnell, Jeff.Kaufman, SpaghettiToastBook |
2015-01-30 11:54:16 | NeilGirdhar | set | messageid: <1422618856.25.0.212715132304.issue2292@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2015-01-30 11:54:16 | NeilGirdhar | link | issue2292 messages |
2015-01-30 11:54:15 | NeilGirdhar | create | |
|