On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 at 08:29, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 at 22:27, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/12/21 4:40 am, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > the
> > > intended use is that people must supply a list[int] or not supply the
> > > argument *at all*.
> >
> > I don't think this is a style of API that we should be encouraging
> > people to create, because it results in things that are very
> > awkward to wrap.
>
> Hmm, interesting point, I agree with you. It's particularly telling
> that I got sucked into designing that sort of API, even though I know
> it's got this problem. I guess that counts as an argument against the
> late bound defaults proposal - or maybe even two:
>
> 1. It's hard (if not impossible) to wrap functions that use late-bound
> defaults.
> 2. The feature encourages people to write such unwrappable functions
> when an alternative formulation that is wrappable is just as good.
>
> (That may actually only be one point - obviously a feature encourages
> people to use it, and any feature can be over-used. But the point
> about wrappability stands).
Actually, Chris - does functools.wraps work properly in your
implementation when wrapping functions with late-bound defaults?
>>> def dec(f):
... @wraps(f)
... def inner(*args, **kw):
... print("Calling")
... return f(*args, **kw)
... return inner
...
>>> @dec
... def g(a => []):
... return len(a)
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/M5OHAWF44FRD6OL5F65IDDNKBFL36RUW/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
