[Python-ideas] What's going on with PEP 448 - Additional Unpacking Generalizations ?

[Joshua Landau]

On 20 January 2015 at 14:18, Joshua Landau <joshua at landau.ws> wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 11:02, Neil Girdhar <mistersheik at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> f(1, d=4, *[1,2], 2, **{})
>
> These should be OK, if I've understood the sentiment.

I meant, of course, to reply to your fixed version:

>> f(1, d=4, *[1,2], **{})

wrt.

>> Also, if after PEP 448, you can do
>>
>> f(*a, *b, *c)
>>
>> and you can always do
>>
>> f(a,
>>   b,
>>   c,
>>  )
>>
>> then why shouldn't you be able to do
>>
>> f(*a,
>>   *b,
>>   *c,
>>  )

I see no reason this shouldn't work.

On 20 January 2015 at 14:18, Joshua Landau <joshua at landau.ws> wrote:
> On 20 January 2015 at 11:02, Neil Girdhar <mistersheik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been working on the patch for PEP 448.  Are the restrictions on the
>> order of arguments in a function call partially or fully lifted?
>
> I believe we settled on
>
>     function(
>         argument or *args, argument or *args, ...,
>         kwargument or *args, kwargument or *args, ...,
>         kwargument or **kwargs, kwargument or **kwargs, ...
>     )
>
> as the most likely candidate.
>
> Guido said
>> Regarding the decision about the allowable syntax for argument lists,
>> I prefer to keep the existing restriction
>
> See https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2013-July/021872.html
> for the discussion.
>
>> Currently, we can do:
>> def f(a, b, c, d):
>>     pass
>>
>> f(1, d=4, *[1,2], 2, **{})
>>
>> After PEP 448 can we do:
>>
>> f(1, d=4, *[2], c=3, **{})
>>
>> ?
>
> These should be OK, if I've understood the sentiment.