On 5/7/06, Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an example, lets take a look at re.sub:
>
> sub(pattern, repl, string[, count])
>
> The documentation says that "repl can be a string or a function" and
> "If repl is a function, it is called for every non-overlapping occurrence
> of pattern. The function takes a single match object argument, and
> returns the replacement string."
>
> This is certainly an example where different actions are taken based on the
> type of the object. And as for this being bad style - well, if the standard
> library can't be used as a model of API design -- especially a module that
> has been refactored as many times as re -- then what can be?
>
> Certainly this ability can be abused to create obscure code, but in this
> particular case the usage seems reasonable and relatively straight
> forward; I would hate to categorically forbid all uses of APIs that
> take actions based on object type rather than strict OOP.
Either way, the result of the following is undocumented (and arbitrary):
>>> import re
>>> re.sub('.', 'y', 'xxx')
'yyy'
>>> re.sub('.', lambda x: 'y', 'xxx')
'yyy'
>>> class guess(str):
... def __call__(self, x): return 'z'
...
>>> re.sub('.', guess('y'), 'xxx')
'zzz'
>>> guess('y')
'y'
>>>
guess('y') is *both* a string and a callable. OK, so it's a contrived
example, but if there were two separate functions, re.sub and re.subfn
(or separate keyword parameter fn= and repl=, or any other explicit
API) the ambiguity would never occur.
It's not a big enough problem to break backward compatibility, but it
should probably be revisited for Py3K. And it's certainly not obvious
that the re.sub API is flawless...
Paul.
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
