Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Default arguments in Python - the return - running out of ideas but...
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Steven D'Aprano  
View profile  
 More options May 13 2009, 6:01 pm
From: Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 08:01:32 +1000
Local: Wed, May 13 2009 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Default arguments in Python - the return - running out of ideas but...
On Thu, 14 May 2009 05:18:37 am CTO wrote:

> If you thought not reevaluating function expressions
> was confusing for newbies, wait until you see what making up a new
> kind of yield will do for them.

> Why not just push for some decorators that do this to be included in
> stdlib? I see the utility, but not the point of adding extra syntax.

Even if a decorator solution can be made to work, it seems to me that
the difficulty with a decorator solution is that it is
all-or-nothing -- you can decorate the entire parameter list, or none
of the parameters, but not some of the parameters. You can bet that
people will say they want delayed evaluation of some default arguments
and compile-time evaluation of others, in the same function definition.

There are work-arounds, of course, but there are perfectly adequate
work-arounds for the lack of delayed evaluation defaults now, and it
hasn't stopped the complaints.

I'm going to suggest that any syntax should be applied to the formal
parameter name, not the default value. This feels right to me -- we're
saying that it's the formal parameter that is "special" for using
delayed semantics, not that the default object assigned to it is
special. Hence it should be the formal parameter that is tagged, not
the default value.

By analogy with the use of the unary-* operator, I suggest we use a new
unary-operator to indicate the new semantics. Inside the parameter
list, &x means to delay evaluation of the default argument to x to
runtime:

def parrot(a, b, x=[], &y=[], *args, **kwargs):

As a bonus, this will allow for a whole new series of bike-shedding
arguments about which specific operator should be used. *grin*

Tagging a parameter with unary-& but failing to specify a default value
should be a syntax error:

def parrot(&x, &y=[]):

Likewise for unary-& outside of a parameter list.

Bike-shedding away... *wink*

--
Steven D'Aprano
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-id...@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.