> Well. It reads fine in a certain sense, in that I can figure out > what's going on (although I have some troubles figuring out why the > heck certain things are in the code). The issue is that what's going > on is otherworldly: this is not a Python pattern, this is not a normal > approach. To me, that means it does not read fine.
Sorry for the double post, but I think I damaged my statement a little in the edit process here. I have a hard time reading the code, and the implications of using exec on how initialization works is not obvious. I do believe that this solution is significantly less readable than it would be in a language with "real" macros, or using an alternate dict-based approach. I don't mean to just say "it's different, therefore it's wrong" -- it takes more than just being unusual (not that the unusualness helps). Devin On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Neither am I. I am less suspicious based on a reputation. Raymond is a >> well-known, trusted senior Python developer who knows what he is doing. > > I don't really know anything about him or why people respect him, so I > have no reason to share your faith. > >> It reads fine, and the justification is perfectly valid. > > Well. It reads fine in a certain sense, in that I can figure out > what's going on (although I have some troubles figuring out why the > heck certain things are in the code). The issue is that what's going > on is otherworldly: this is not a Python pattern, this is not a normal > approach. To me, that means it does not read fine. > > The use of exec also results in (seemingly) arbitrary constraints on > the input. Like, why can't "--" be a name? Because exec? Is there some > other reason? > > I don't like the use of exec, and I don't like the justification (it > seems handwavy). I pointed this out in a thread full of people saying > "never EVER use exec this way", so it's obviously not just me that > thinks this is awful. > >> You're right to be cautious of exec. You're wrong to be phobic about it. >> What do you think is going to happen? > > I think somebody will read it and think this is a good idea. > > Devin > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:01:16 -0500, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: >> >>>> If it were someone other than Raymond Hettinger responsible for the use >>>> of exec in namedtuple, I'd be a lot more suspicious of it. >>> >>> I'm not going to be less suspicious based on a name. >> >> Neither am I. I am less suspicious based on a reputation. Raymond is a >> well-known, trusted senior Python developer who knows what he is doing. >> >> >>> It reads like >>> insanity, and the justification was terrible. >> >> It reads fine, and the justification is perfectly valid. >> >> You're right to be cautious of exec. You're wrong to be phobic about it. >> What do you think is going to happen? The exec call inside namedtuple is >> going to creep out of the module in the wee hours of the night, >> contaminating other functions and modules while you sleep? Be serious. If >> you have an actual concrete security vulnerability caused by the use of >> exec inside namedtuple, or some other bug, then say so. Otherwise, your >> paranoia is unjustified. >> >> >> >> -- >> Steven >> -- >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list >> > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
