Message187680
| Author |
v+python |
| Recipients |
amcnabb, bethard, docs@python, guilherme-pg, paul.j3, r.david.murray, v+python |
| Date |
2013年04月24日.01:11:55 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1366765915.74.0.990934702291.issue14191@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Yes, a second function would give more flexibility.
Due to the "approval" in msg166175 to use the name parse_intermixed_args for the functionality described there, it would probably be best to use that name for that functionality.
So then we are left naming your current function something else. parse_known_intermixed_args certainly is descriptive, and fits the naming conventions of the other methods in the class. Quite long, unfortunately... but then I doubt it will get used much. I am using parse_intermixed_args regularly (via my wrapper class), and it is quite long enough. |
|