> Sorry, but when I have positional arguments, I only want to have to worry about
> their position for the API, and when I have keyword arguments, I only want to
> have to worry about their names for the API. In your proposal I have to worry
> about both, for all arguments. You seem to think that your proposal adds the
> advantages of both styles. In my opinion it only adds together their drawbacks.
> The advantages of keyword arguments disappear when there's a chance that someone
> will call them positionally, and the advantages of positional arguments
> disappear when there's a chance that someone will use them with keywords.

Well, I just realized reading the thread again that, syntax differences
aside, Sydney's proposal of making all parameters be allowed to be
named parameters is very akin to that of Python, while Matz proposal is
very much like Common Lisp.  Sorry for being a tad slow...  I
understand Matz dislike for python's approach now.  I completely agree
from theoretical pov.

Question, however, is from a practical pov.  Since python has supported
a Sydney-like function definition since v2.0 (ie. for the past 3 years
or longer), has this issue come up and has been a clear problem for
developers of libraries in that language?