I have mixed feelings; I won't go so far as to say I oppose removing
tuple-arguments, but some of the problems do have other solutions.
On 3/2/07, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there is great difficulty when it comes to tuple parameters. The
> existence of a tuple parameter is denoted by it name being made of a
> ``.`` and a number in the ``co_varnames`` attribute of the function's
> code object.
I think this is just an implementation detail. For example,
co_varnames could itself hold tuples as well as names. (That would
itself break backwards compatibility, but only for introspection.)
> Consider PEP 3102 (keyword-only arguments) and PEP 3107 (function
> annotations) [#pep-3102]_ [#pep-3107]_. Both PEPs have been accepted and
> introduce new functionality within a function's signature. And yet
> for both PEPs the new feature cannot be applied to tuple parameters.
I hadn't realized that they couldn't be annotated. That could be fixed.
On the other hand, the existence of annotations does take away part of
the value -- now you could just annotate a_b_c as having internal
structure: (a, (b, c))
I'm not sure what keyword-only could even mean for strictly positional
arguments.
> The existence of tuple parameters also places sequence objects
> separately from mapping objects in a function signature. There is no
> way to pass in a mapping object (e.g., a dict) as a parameter and have
> it unpack in the same fashion as a sequence does into a tuple
> parameter.
Either **kwargs or f(**mapping) is pretty close, depending on your perspective.
The main difference is that sequence users have to supply all the
names (keys) in advance, so you can't default only part of a tuple.
(This oddness does strengthen the "but it really represents a unitary
something" aspect.)
> Iterating over every line in Python's code repository in the ``Lib/``
> directory using the regular expression ``^\s*def\s*\w+\s*\(`` to
> detect function and method definitions there were 22,252 matches in
> the trunk.
> Tacking on ``.*,\s*\(`` to find ``def`` statements that contained a
> tuple parameter, only 41 matches were found. This means that for
> ``def`` statements, only 0.18% of them seem to use a tuple parameter.
That misses first-argument tuples, such as cgitb.text and pydoc.fixup.
Searching '^\\s*def\\s*\\w+\\s*\\(\\s*\\(' in C:\Python25\Lib\*.py ...
I got 19 first-argument hits, but ten were in test, and another 4 in
site-packages.
I think it would also miss multiline defs whose tuple argument was not
on the first line.
That said, the frequency is almost certainly still less than 0.5%.
-jJ
_______________________________________________
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
