Message154743
| Author |
gregory.p.smith |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, Ramchandra Apte, brian.curtin, eric.araujo, eric.snow, ezio.melotti, gregory.p.smith, gruszczy, meatballhat, rhettinger |
| Date |
2012年03月02日.07:23:49 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.6929773e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1330673030.74.0.667840771676.issue8706@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
restricting the scope of this makes sense.
also: just because an argument is listed in the docs with a name does not mean that that name is the most appropriate; part of adding keyword support should be choosing a sensible name. Keyword arguments, when used, should increase the readability of code rather than add to confusion.
I intend to bring this up for a brief discussion at the language summit next week as representatives of all the Python VMs will be in the same room at once. Goal: define the appropriate scope or at the very least non-scope.
As for performance and memory use, yes, it could have a small impact but it should not be large [worth measuring] and that seems like something we should fix in a more general way rather than by limiting the way methods can be called based on how a given VM is implemented. |
|