(original) (raw)
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Mark Dickinson <dickinsm@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:51 PM, R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> wrote:Same here, on all three counts. �In one of the projects I'm currently
> It seems like the status quo is fine. �I wouldn't object to it being
> made more consistent. �I would object to removing the existing cases.
working on, we've settled on a style that does quite a lot of:
my\_thing = Thing(
� �foo = Foo(arg1, arg2, ...),
� �bar = Bar(arg3, arg4, ...),
� �...
)
and I've found the trailing comma very convenient during refactoring
and API experimentation. �(There's still good fun to be had arguing
about the indentation of that closing parenthesis, though.)
Another valid use case that occurred to me is building up a string-keyed dictionary:
mapping = dict(
� x=1,
� y=2,
� z=3,
)
So, on reflection, removing the existing cases where it is supported is certainly unreasonable, which makes the consistency argument that much stronger.
For the record, I reopened issue #9232 (noting the lack of consensus), and (as someone suggested on the tracker) changed the resolution on the other one to be as a duplicate of #9232.
Cheers,
Nick.
P.S. As I noted in the logging discussion, my email access is going to be a bit sketchy for the next couple of weeks.
--
Nick Coghlan�� |�� ncoghlan@gmail.com�� |�� Brisbane, Australia