On 12/17/2011 22:52, buck wrote: > Try these on for size. > > head, @tuple tail = sequence > def foo(@list args, @dict kwargs): pass > foo(@args, @kwargs) > > For backward compatibility, we could say that the unary * is identical to > @list and unary ** is identical to @dict. > I like this idea much more than the original one. In addition to the arguments buck puts forth, which I find compelling, I have one more: you go to great length to say "this isn't really type checking in any sense" (which is true)... but then you go forth and pick a syntax that looks almost exactly like how you name types in many languages! (In fact, except for the fact that it's inline, the 'object :: type' syntax is *exactly* how you name types in Haskell.)
buck's syntax still has some of the feel of "I wonder if this is type
checking" to a newbie, but much much less IMO.
I have a bigger objection with the general idea, however.It seems very
strange that you should have to specify types to use it. If the */**
syntax were removed, that would make the proposed syntax very very
unusual for Python. I could be missing something, but I can think of any
other place where you have to name a type except where the type is an
integral part of what you're trying to do. (I would not say that
choosing between tuples and lists are an integral part of dealing with
vararg functions.) If */** were to stick around, I could see 99% of
users continuing to use them. And then what has the new syntax achieved?
You can fix this if you don't require the types and just allow the user
to say "def foo(@args)" and "foo(@args)". Except... that's starting to
look pretty familiar... (Not to mention if you just omit the type from
the examples above you need another way to distinguish between args and
kwargs.)
I have one more suggestion.
I do have one more thing to point out, which is that currently the
Python vararg syntax is very difficult to Google for. In the first pages
of the four searches matching "python (function)? (star | asterisk)",
there was just one relevant hit on python.org which wasn't a bug report.
I certainly remember having a small amount of difficulty figuring out
what the heck * and ** did the first time I encountered them.
This would suggest perhaps some keywords might be called for instead of
operators. In the grand scheme of things the argument packing and
unpacking are not *all* that common, so I don't think the syntactic
burden would be immense. The bigger issue, of course, would be picking
good words.
This also helps with the issue above. Let's say we'll use 'varargs' and
'kwargs', though the latter too well-ingrained in code to steal. (I
don't want to get too much into the debate over *what* word to choose.
Also these don't match the 'head, *tail = l' syntax very well.) Then we
could say:
def foo(varargs l, kwargs d):
bar(varargs l, kwargs d)
and varargs would be equivalent to * and kwargs would be equivalent to
**. But then you could also say
def foo(varargs(list) l, kwargs(dict) d)
Evan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
