Peter Otten wrote: > Steve Holden wrote: > > >>>Why don't you just change the method signature to foo(self, x, y, z, >>>whatever, **kwargs)? > > >>Probably because values are then required for those arguments. Plus it's >>a lot of work to specify "a very long list", and the list will also need >>maintaining. > > > Note that I kept the **kwargs argument. He would only have to specify > variables that are actually used in foo(), and these need maintaining > anyway. As to optional arguments, you can provide default values. Checking > for those is easier and safer than using local variables that may not be > bound or accidentally refer to a global. > Now I think I understand your intention better. Further discussion would be flogging horse already dead for several days.
> # e. g. > missing = object() # if None is a valid state of whatever > def foo(self, whatever=missing, **kwargs): > if whatever is not missing: > # use whatever > > >>I must, however, agree with Mike's advice: it's unwise to try and >>pollute a function's namespace with arbitrary variables. Some kind of >>bunch-like object would seem to be the most satisfactory way to go. > > > Using a bunch doesn't remove the necessity of an existence-test either (for > optional attributes). > No more it does. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
