[issue2292] Missing *-unpacking generalizations

[Guido van Rossum]

Guido van Rossum added the comment:

SGTM

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Neil Girdhar <report at 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 at bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>
> _______________________________________
>

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>
_______________________________________