Message187680
Yes, a second function would give more flexibility.
Due to the "approval" in msg166175 to use the name parse_intermixed_args for the functionality described there, it would probably be best to use that name for that functionality.
So then we are left naming your current function something else. parse_known_intermixed_args certainly is descriptive, and fits the naming conventions of the other methods in the class. Quite long, unfortunately... but then I doubt it will get used much. I am using parse_intermixed_args regularly (via my wrapper class), and it is quite long enough. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2013-04-24 01:11:55 | v+python | set | recipients:
+ v+python, amcnabb, bethard, r.david.murray, docs@python, paul.j3, guilherme-pg |
2013-04-24 01:11:55 | v+python | set | messageid: <1366765915.74.0.990934702291.issue14191@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2013-04-24 01:11:55 | v+python | link | issue14191 messages |
2013-04-24 01:11:55 | v+python | create | |
|