I think it's much more beautiful and convenient than your JS example which in all honesty looks necessary cluttered and ugly.
> cluttered and ugly
I won’t argue with you about visuals because I don’t think they’re all that important. But, I think it’s undeniable that reusing the same syntactic concepts across different semantic use cases is quite a lot more logically clean & beautiful than introducing new syntax that other HN commenters with past python experience can’t even understand. If someone sees the JS named parameter syntax at a declaration and has any JS experience, they’ll almost certainly figure out what to do - if someone sees the asterisk, even with Python experience, they’ll think “what the heck is this asterisk?” And again, the other commenters on this thread are clear evidence that this is indeed as unintuitive as I describe.
There's a collection of 0 arguments. the "∗" was introduced specifically as a shortcut for:
def foo(a, *ignore, b):
if ignore:
raise TypeError
forgoing the name simply signals to the language that it should collect nothing.It's a logical extension of the assumption that anything which follows `∗arg` is a keyword-only parameter.
*args
creates a catch-all variadic function parameter called `args` which matches all positional parameters not heretofore assigned *
(same operator, without a name following) indicates that no more positional parameters may be matched after this pointThey are close enough cognitively to warrant reuse IMO.
Huh? It's both making parameters more explicit and functions using it more readable and self-documenting.
In fact, the old way, before bare / and * in args list, where functions essentially had mandatory optional-keyword arguments made every function create an API in violation of “There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.”
It is very much not readable, as evidenced by the other python-experienced commenters on this thread having no clue what it means (“readability” doesn’t mean “easy to understand for people who already know what it means”, as achieving that is a very low bar. What should be targeted is “obvious enough to have a clear meaning even to those who haven’t studied the exact section of the spec”, which is possible in the JS approach as they’re reusing the same syntactic constructs throughout the language, but is impossible in the Python approach because they introduce new syntax to work around every little limitation of their existing syntax)
Named argument are more explicit.
I wrote a lot of old python and js code with dict/object as argument, they were dreadful
I think JavaScript got this right where the semantic resolution steps of arguments pretty closely follow the steps for assignment, which means once someone understands the basic idea of object destructuring they get named arguments for free, in the form of destructured object parameters: