Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32.4k
gh-104984: remove kwargs and starargs from Call & ClassDef#104986
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
These fields are removed inpython@025e9eb
ghost commentedMay 26, 2023 • edited by ghost
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited by ghost
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
carljm left a comment• edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Thanks for the PR! I verified that these arguments (and attributes) indeed don't exist anymore. Impressive that nobody noticed this until now in the 8(!) years since they were removed.
@@ -1820,7 +1820,7 @@ Function and class definitions | |||
type_ignores=[]) | |||
.. class:: ClassDef(name, bases, keywords,starargs, kwargs,body, decorator_list) | |||
.. class:: ClassDef(name, bases, keywords, body, decorator_list) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
This is also now out of date with the implementation in main and 3.12 due to the addition oftype_params
argument in PEP 695, but that's being addressed in#104642
Still seems sensible to removestarargs
andkwargs
in this PR, and let@JelleZijlstra resolve the resulting conflict on this line in#104642
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Hmm, backporting this will mean that the PEP 695 docs PR won't backport cleanly, which may cause a bit more of a pain.@JelleZijlstra how do you prefer to handle this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Just merge this first, I'll take care of the backports
…honGH-104986)These fields are removed inpython@025e9eb(cherry picked from commit61c1d67)Co-authored-by: Shaygan Hooshyari <sh.hooshyari@gmail.com>
bedevere-bot commentedMay 26, 2023
GH-104987 is a backport of this pull request to the3.12 branch. |
bedevere-bot commentedMay 26, 2023
GH-104988 is a backport of this pull request to the3.11 branch. |
…honGH-104986)These fields are removed inpython@025e9eb(cherry picked from commit61c1d67)Co-authored-by: Shaygan Hooshyari <sh.hooshyari@gmail.com>
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
These fields were removed in025e9eb
Resolves:#104984
📚 Documentation preview 📚:https://cpython-previews--104986.org.readthedocs.build/