Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Enchancement suggestion for argparse: intuit type from default
References: <jjocvo$5i2$1@panix2.panix.com> <87zkbkgp67.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <4f6094c5$0$29972$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
X-Public-Key-ID: 0xAC128405
X-Public-Key-Fingerprint: 517C F14B B2F3 98B0 CB35  4855 B8B2 4C06 AC12 8405
X-Public-Key-URL: http://www.benfinney.id.au/contact/bfinney-pubkey.asc
X-Post-From: Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:19:15 +1100
Message-ID: <87399bgw18.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Iqiund0pPo3K1EHeiiB69aoaYjg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 40
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 502c7a15.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=6OT7_RZ:IW3o^d=IeQT`3>L?0kYOcDh@:N7:H2`MmAU3S2kSQZD<P_;]G;2>V^?kW3bEW9A[5UK?5NZ[SL`C\Kg3A0QPj3IAX;4
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21596

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:35:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > That feels too magical to me. I don't see a need to special-case
> > that usage. There's not much burden in being explicit for the
> > argument type.
>
> And yet you are programming in Python instead of Java, Pascal or Ada
> :)

That's a good point :-)

> It's not magic at all, it's science! Or to be precise, it's a very simple 
> form of type inference

Right. I dislike proposals for run-time type inference in Python, since
they are too magical.

Especially since we're talking about user input (arguments from the
command line to the program); that requires more explicit declarations
and checking, not less.

> What if you want an argument --foo that will accept arbitrary types? Then 
> you would need some way to tell argparse not to infer the type from the 
> default.

So we would then need to special-case the special-case? Even more reason
to dislike this proposal.

> Explicit declarations should be used only for the uncommon cases where
> type inference cannot cope.

That's our point of disagreement, then: I think explicit declarations
should be required regarding user input.

-- 
 \              “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against |
  `\       unintelligible propositions.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1816-07-30 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney