PEP 570: Weird syntax leading to inconsistence

[pablogsal (Pablo Galindo Salgado)]

@vlad0337187

But I see that PEP 570 was opened in March 2019, and it was not yet delivered to Python release, so thought, it could be discussed and, probably, changed.

PEP 570 is already accepted and included in the 3.8 release, which is already out.

As to unpack positional args (actually - tuples) we use *, and for keyword args - **; I would understand if we would use it for delimiting positional args from keyword-positional and pure keyword args.

Using * and ** as you propose would have been backwards-incompatible so even if you were on time for the original discussion, sadly that proposal could not be considered as some others in this thread are indicating. The meaning of * and ** (and the “inconsistency” you mentioned) was already established even before PEP570 was created.

Also, the same discussion has been raised some times before and answered as well. For instance:

PEP 570: Python Positional-Only Parameters

I don’t think you can state that as a fact. The current solution lets us define syntax that goes positional-only, positional-or-keyword, keyword-only where there is symmetry in how you transition across the parameter list. Your solution would lose that. That’s highly doubtful. If have added and removed syntax, but never swapped syntax.

Yeah, agree that there’s no anything ideal for everybody, but here is straight mismatch to current syntax, so I hoped it could be fixed before delivering to release…

I know you don’t want to be disrespectful, but what you define as “straight mismatch to current syntax” or “gets overpopulated by inconsistency” may be viewed differently by others, so I encourage you to describe your ideas in a different way next time. What you may think is just “giving your opinion” may impact some people (involved in what you mentioned or otherwise), leading to burnt out and discouraging them to contribute again.