Message182046
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, Trundle, alex, asvetlov, barry, bfroehle, chris.jerdonek, daniel.urban, david.villa, dmalcolm, eric.smith, ezio.melotti, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, jcea, jkloth, larry, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, pitrou, skrah, v+python |
| Date |
2013年02月13日.16:39:06 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1850603693.32643469.1360773539385.JavaMail.root@zimbra10-e2.priv.proxad.net> |
| In-reply-to |
<1360760789.18.0.617983449453.issue16612@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> Here's a proposal for an alternative without parameter docstrings and
> a
> different DSL (see os_stat.c). I guess it's easiest to present my
> thoughts
> in list form.
It's a bit difficult to give an opinion without a more formal definition.
For example it seems you are using REQUIRED and KEYWORD as opposites,
but a required argument can also be a keyword argument.
As for the docstring: I would like it better if I could avoid typing
the cumbersome "\n\"s.
As for the general parameter declaration syntax: I think it shouldn't
be too verbose, otherwise it will quickly become tiring.
(also I don't think it should be required to write "[preprocessor]"
twice) |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年02月13日 16:39:06 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, gvanrossum, barry, gregory.p.smith, jcea, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, larry, eric.smith, jkloth, ezio.melotti, Arfrever, v+python, alex, Trundle, asvetlov, skrah, dmalcolm, daniel.urban, chris.jerdonek, bfroehle, david.villa |
| 2013年02月13日 16:39:06 | pitrou | link | issue16612 messages |
| 2013年02月13日 16:39:06 | pitrou | create |
|