[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> > I find this style of coding repulsive when compared to:
> >
> > def foo(arg1=None, arg2=None):
> > print dict(arg1=arg1, arg2=arg2)
> >
> > I don't understand what added value all of those extra, contorted lines
> > are supposed to bring to the party.
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> the thing is that I have about 30 parameters to pass to a method and I
> wanted to have a cleaner way to deal with it than just declaring them
> all as arguments: hence **kwargs and all that mess ;-)
Aha, I see -- yes, a nasty case; I understand why you don't want the
boilerplate of 30 'optional named arguments'.
> I was thinking to declare the a list of valid and expected parameters
> in a module and then import * and run my checks against it. Since this
A list seems inappropriate, because it implies an order you don't care
about; I would suggest a set instead. Also, I don't see why "import *"
would be better than a normal import here -- the latter seems better.
> stuff is being posted by a web form I also need to deal with checkbox
> not being posted if not checked which lead me to:
>
> for name in expected_form1_kwargs:
> if name not in kwargs:
> kwargs[name]=None
Set operations appear to be at a more appropriate level of abstraction
for what you're doing, it seems to me. You want to ensure that kwargs,
seen as a set, is a subset of expected_kwargs, and then enrich kwargs
with None for all names that are in expected_kwargs but not yet in
kwargs; the most direct expression of this (assuming you want a detailed
diagnostics of wrongly-passed argument names), it appears to me, is to
keep in expected_args the dictionary mapping each expected arg to its
default value (dict.fromkeys(listofnames), if listofnames is a list of
the expected arguments' names a None the default value for each) and
then check in your method with code such as:
spurious_args = set(kwargs).difference(expected_args)
if spurious_args:
raise TypeError, 'spurious args %s' % spurious_args
kwargs = dict(expected_args, **kwargs)
If you didn't need the list of spurious argument names for diagnostic
purposes, the check might be more simply expressed as
if not set(kwargs).issubset(expected_args): ...
which is more readable (IMHO the difference isn't quite enough to
warrant checking in this way and then computing the spurious_args only
if needed, i.e., in the body of the if statement, but that's a debatable
issue of style).
Operating on sets, and more generally at higher abstraction levels, is
often a preferable Python alternative to "detailed looping" at a level
that's closer to the concrete data structures in your code.
Alex
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
