On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 23:52:42 +0000 (UTC) kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote:
> In <hp8h73$k1...@reader1.panix.com> kj <no.em...@please.post> writes: > > [snip] > >P.S. this is just an example; the function I want to implement has > >more parameters in its signature, with longer, more informative > >names. > > Andreas, perhaps this paragraph explains why I find your solution > unappealing: it requires typing the same thing over and over, > which increases the chances of bugs. That's the reason I avoid > such repetitiveness, not laziness, as you so were so quick to accuse > me of. > First up: I am sorry, I did not mean to offend. I apologize if I did. But I stand by my point: If this class is the only instance of this pattern, you'll only do this once. I see no reason to automate something that will run only once anyway. >From your own reply to the above it seems that the *args-notation solves your problem (if I understand correctly). Since I'm patronizing by nature, I'd like to weigh in on this: The approach you describe seems like a Perl-ism[1]. *args is meant for variable argument lists. Using it as a shortcut for "many formal parameters" is misuse of that feature (not the worst kind, but not very good either). In addition to creating the impression that the function takes a variable number of arguments, it breaks introspection/self-documentation. Also, "many formal parameters" can be a signal to rethink the approach altogether. I feel that if a function has more than 6 or so parameters, I'm missing an opportunity to simplify my code. All of the above is philosophy, of course, and mine to boot, so feel free to ignore my rambling. But maybe you can elaborate a bit on why you need names *and* sequence of your parameters preserved and why there need to be so many of them. Perhaps a fresh perspective on this will yield a less problematic approach. Then again, maybe I have wasted your time enough already. ;) /W -- INVALID? DE! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
