Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Todd Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Late-binding of function defaults (was Re: What is a function parameter =[] for?) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:38:01 +0100 Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de LmkTIGnfL5OZleNnhZdkSw5H8+6xXUd2cpMBcQKIrI/w== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'args': 0.04; 'none,': 0.05; 'none:': 0.05; 'used.': 0.05; 'default.': 0.07; 'expressions': 0.07; 'remaining': 0.07; '*args': 0.09; '*args):': 0.09; '[])': 0.09; 'args,': 0.09; 'argument,': 0.09; 'complaining': 0.09; 'default:': 0.09; 'satisfy': 0.09; 'timeout': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'syntax': 0.13; 'def': 0.13; 'argument': 0.15; 'subject: \n ': 0.15; 'variables': 0.15; '"""not': 0.16; 'bad;': 0.16; 'binding,': 0.16; 'closures,': 0.16; 'default),': 0.16; 'discarded': 0.16; 'mapping,': 0.16; 'object()': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'sentinel': 0.16; 'sequence,': 0.16; 'skip:j 30': 0.16; 'subject:?)': 0.16; 'syntactic': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'nested': 0.18; 'try:': 0.18; '>': 0.18; 'email addr:gmail.com>': 0.18; 'python?': 0.18; '2015': 0.20; 'purposes': 0.20; '(the': 0.22; 'aspect': 0.22; 'function,': 0.22; 'parameter': 0.22; 'techniques,': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'this:': 0.23; 'second': 0.24; '(this': 0.24; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.24; "doesn't": 0.26; 'fri,': 0.27; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'specify': 0.27; 'mode.': 0.29; 'handled': 0.29; 'raise': 0.29; 'too.': 0.30; "can't": 0.32; 'implement': 0.32; 'maybe': 0.33; 'point': 0.33; 'options': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'instead,': 0.33; 'raising': 0.33; 'skip:j 20': 0.33; 'definition': 0.34; 'except': 0.34; 'skip:& 20': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'could': 0.35; 'text': 0.35; 'nov': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'received:74.125.82': 0.35; "isn't": 0.35; 'problem.': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'too': 0.36; 'instead': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'really': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'skip:& 10': 0.37; 'support,': 0.37; 'things': 0.38; 'late': 0.38; 'skip:z 10': 0.38; "won't": 0.38; 'skip:o 20': 0.38; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'rather': 0.39; 'well.': 0.40; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'easy': 0.60; 'share': 0.61; 'skip:u 10': 0.61; 'body': 0.61; 'provide': 0.61; 'default': 0.61; 'skip:n 10': 0.62; 'is.': 0.63; 'times': 0.63; 'within': 0.64; 'our': 0.64; '20,': 0.66; 'binding': 0.66; 'obvious': 0.76; 'hand': 0.82; '"here\'s': 0.84; 'chrisa': 0.84; 'construct': 0.84; 'flaw,': 0.84; 'too:': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0MIuuZfmyDGB25tz4VSlkuXn9FrLleZvNXwbVPjPy4o=; b=fObmg9bUcTj3JRCV4Pk+dS7SSZG5Mhf94RwQXakGNRJ8QqZivoDJBVp1cOmeLtIS1y 3/nPrf21Z7Yfj6alyRQjpx2odmNh23FYwMTFnEk/0rBoq2ZXOEMIw4nHpE3phDMtCalS I3A2DykHZswg+m/LrYg6rpVmlTch+sA0qcbg/S44rQ+vEJ1inJY5CbfxIKbo5cBmSejJ OplHJ7z6S5W1w25UqJX90bjo25gUm3VtwLQqkcijSs2juv+ec4HkxFRGobfy/dlKPuPp p0JnUyZmRPP1hCmUhc8KHor2aRsJmC8mWqvqSt9DRdShUgIJm5AsP4G7DAHuaLg5BZ5I Aw1Q== X-Received: by 10.194.112.131 with SMTP id iq3mr19085304wjb.35.1448095081334; Sat, 21 Nov 2015 00:38:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20+ X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:99201 On Nov 19, 2015 20:48, "Chris Angelico" wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:42 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > BartC on the other hand is just complaining about an aspect of Python > > that is legitimately controversial. > > IMO it's controversial mainly because there's an easy and obvious > syntax for early binding, but late binding doesn't have syntactic > support, and all the options are imperfect. Consider: > > def late1(x=None): > """Terse but buggy""" > do_stuff_with(x or []) > > def late2(x=None): > """Not bad but has an extra line for each default. Also, can't take None.""" > if x is None: x = [] > do_stuff_with(x) > > _SENTINEL = object() > def late3(x=_SENTINEL): > """Has the same global-pollution problem you get when you > try to construct early binding from late; you can share the > sentinel among multiple args, even multiple funcs, though""" > if x is _SENTINEL: x = [] > do_stuff_with(x) > > def late4(x=object()): > """Depends on its own name remaining bound in its scope, > and will break if you change argument order""" > if x is late4.__defaults__[0]: x = [] > do_stuff_with(x) > > And there might be other techniques, too. They all share one important > flaw, too: When you ask for help about the function, you can't see > what the default really is. All you see is: > > late1(x=None) > late3(x=) > > In the first two cases, it's not too bad; you can specify a timeout as > either a number or as None, and if it's None (the default), the > timeout is three times the currently estimated round trip time. No > problem. But how would you implement something like next() in pure > Python? If you provide _any second argument at all_, it returns that > instead of raising StopIteration. The ONLY way that I can think of is > to use *args notation: > > def next(iterator, *default): > try: > return iterator.__next__() > except StopIteration: > if default: return default[0] > raise > > And while that isn't TOO bad for just one argument, it scales poorly: > > def foo(fixed_arg, *args): > """Foo the fixed_arg against the spam mapping, the > ham sequence, and the jam file.""" > args.reverse() > spam = args.pop() if args else {} > ham = args.pop() if args else [] > jam = args.pop() if args else open("jam.txt") > > Suppose, instead, that Python had a syntax like this: > > def foo(fixed_arg, spam=>{}, ham=>[], jam=>open("jam.txt")): > """Foo the fixed_arg against the spam mapping, the > ham sequence, and the jam file.""" > > The expressions would be evaluated as closures, using the same scope > that the function's own definition used. (This won't keep things alive > unnecessarily, as the function's body will be nested within that same > scope anyway.) Bikeshed the syntax all you like, but this would be > something to point people to: "here's how to get late-binding > semantics". For the purposes of documentation, the exact text of the > parameter definition could be retained, and like docstrings, they > could be discarded in -OO mode. > > Would this satisfy the people who get confused about "=[]"? > > ChrisA Rather than a dedicated syntax, might this be something that could be handled by a built-in decorator? Maybe something like: @late_binding def myfunc(x, y=[]): @late_binding('z') def myfunc(x, y=expensive(), z=[]): M = 5 @late_binding('z', vars_early=True) def myfunc(x, y=expensive(), z=list(range(n))): The big advantage, as shown in the last example, is that it could be possible to specify early our late binding for variables as well.