[Chicago] order of keyword arguments
Ted Pollari
tcp at mac.com
Sat Feb 7 06:09:16 CET 2009
On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Igor Sylvester wrote:
> I want to use the foo(A=1,B=2) notation instead of foo(('A', 1),
> ('B', 2)), where the order of the elements matter.
Again, can you give us a concrete example of this? Not to be pushy,
but I'm having trouble seeing where the above is the ideal solution to
any particular use case that I can think up, so I'm likely missing
something and would love to be enlightened. Passing in a list (or
other sequence) seems to be a much cleaner way of doing this for
reasons outlined previously. Because, fundamentally, if you're
ordering something and that order matters, you're passing in a
sequence, not a set of discrete keyword arguments. On some
philosophical level, I think you're trying to do something that
conflicts with the notion of 'keyword arguments' -- but maybe that's
just me.
-ted
More information about the Chicago
mailing list