[Python-3000] PEP 3113 (Removal of Tuple Parameter Unpacking) (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Sun Mar 4 21:11:27 CET 2007

On 3/4/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On 3/4/07, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > On 3/4/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > > I see lukewarm support for keeping these at most, and probably > > lukewarm support for removing them at well. That means I get to decide > > and nobody will care much (for once :-). So my decision is to get rid > > of them. > > Woohoo! Can I go ahead and mark the PEP as accepted then?

Please do!

Done!

I also did some other cleanup in PEP 0: marked PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments), PEP 3104 (nonlocal), and 3107 (annotations) as finished. Made PEP 3106 (dict views) as accepted but left as not implemented as there is still an Open Issues section. I reclassified PEP 3108 (stdlib cleanup) as Standards Track instead of Informational as it will need a pronouncement some day and Informational PEPs basically don't.

We really need to make PEP 0 be auto-generated so we stop having to edit the darn thing and having it outdated.

> > Actually they can be annotated. But that's no reason to keep them either. :-) > > I actually meant they can't be annotated like ``def fxn((a, b):int): > pass. I think what Guido is thinking of is def fxn((a:int, > b:int)): pass`` (although that causes an assertion error: > Python/compile.c:2430: failed assertion `scope || > PyStringASSTRING(name)[0] == ''').

Hm, I've never seen that assert. How to provoke it?

I literally pasted in that example function and that triggered it.

Anyway, it will be ripped out when the tuple parameters are ripped out. You might even get the prize for ripping out the most code! :-)

=) Neal better watch out.

-Brett

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list