[issue2292] Missing *-unpacking generalizations

[Guido van Rossum]

Guido van Rossum added the comment:

For the PEP update, please check out the PEP repo at hg.python.org and send
a patch to peps at python.org.
On Jan 30, 2015 3:54 AM, "Neil Girdhar" <report at bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Neil Girdhar added the comment:
>
> 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.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2292>
> _______________________________________
>

----------

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