On Jan 31, 5:41 am, stef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why should I use *args, > as in my ignorance, > making use of a list (or tupple) works just as well, > and is more flexible in it's calling.
Others have mentioned the instances in which it's actually useful - for catch-all arguments. But you also should take into consideration the aesthetics, since python is supposed to be an aesthetically nice language. > So the simple conclusion might be: never use "*args", > or am I overlooking something ? > > # method 1 > def execute (self, *args): > for i in range ( len(args) ): > ... do something > > # method 2 > def chunk_plot(self, list): > for i in range ( len(list) ): > .... do something It's bad practice to use built-ins like 'list' as a regular variable name. > # calling method 1: > execute (S[0], S[4] ) > > # calling method 2: > execute ( ( S[0], S[4] ) ) Let's take a look at those side-by-side: execute (S[0], S[4] ) execute ( ( S[0], S[4] ) ) Now, which one *looks* better? > # or *the extra flexibility) > mylist = ( S[0], S[4] ) > execute ( mylist ) Also, take into consideration the opposite end of the pole; you have your list of arguments (args), and your about to call a function that was declared something like this: def someFunction(arg1, arg2, arg3): # etc. Which is clearer? someFunction(*args) someFunction(args[0], args[1], args[2]) And if you've got a variable number of arguments, it becomes virtually impossible to avoid using the *args syntax. And that doesn't even begin to cover the need for **kargs! (which, if you haven't noticed, is generally used next to *args) It turns out that it's not really necessary in a static-typed language like java (although java 5.0 introduced it); it's the dynamic nature of python that makes these syntactic sugars necessary. And without them, function calls can get really ugly. > thanks, > Stef Mientki -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
