[Python-ideas] Quick idea: defining variables from functions that take the variable name
Sjoerd Job Postmus
sjoerdjob at sjoerdjob.com
Wed Jun 8 13:14:51 EDT 2016
> On 8 Jun 2016, at 17:19, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:17:26PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>
>> I think we might need some helpers, and a slight change to the
>> specifics. I'd have:
>>
>> @binding_method
>> x = obj
>>
>> result in:
>> x = binding_method('x', obj)
>
> That's a bit more promising.
>
> Disadvantage:
> - what was one line is now two;
> - confusing to pass more than a single argument (plus the implicit name)
> to the function;
> - fails the principle "things that look similar should be similar".
>
> Status quo:
>
> Record = namedtuple('Record', fields)
>
> would become:
>
> @namedtuple
> Record = fields
>
> which doesn't look awful. I'm sad that it needs two lines.
>
> But what if you want to pass more than one argument?
>
> @namedtuple
> Record = fields, True
>
> That will be equivalent to
>
> namedtuple('Record', (fields, True))
>
> which is not what is wanted. And it gets worse if you use a keyword
> argument:
>
> Record = fields, verbose=True
TypeError, can't iterate over boolean
@namedtuple(verbose=True)
Record = fields
Although for namedtuple in particular, I'd rather have namedtuple be a class-generator:
class Record(namedtuple(fields)):
pass
Or
class Record(metaclass=namedtuple):
fields = fields
And namedtuple could abuse all the g(l)ory details of metaclasses and/of eval to do its job. And that is the right solution for namedtuple.
The cases that interest me more are typevar/symbol/Django modelfields/sqlalchemy declarative fields and all the cases where you're not constructing a class(like) thingy.
>
> I don't really like the way the @ syntax is being used for two
> completely different things.
>
> @function
> def spam(): ...
>
> does one thing, but
>
> @function
> spam = ...
>
> does a completely different and unrelated thing. I'm not saying that @
> cannot be used for anything but decorators, but I think it is confusing
> to use something which looks so close to decorator syntax for something
> that is nothing like a decorator.
>
>
>> The question for me is: do we want to have something that tells the
>> compiler that "binding_method" or "namedtuple" above are special, or is
>> this just what the compiler does for all uses of what looks like a
>> decorated assignment statement?
>
> I'm surprised you ask that question :-) What does the Zen say about
> special cases?
>
> I don't think it is desirable to have developers have to go cap in hand
> to the core devs and say "Please sir, I have a function that needs to
> know its name, can you please add it to the privileged list of special
> functions that work with @ please?"
>
> *wink*
>
> It should either work for any name after the @ or not at all. Hard
> coding support for just namedtuple would be bad.
>
>
> --
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
More information about the Python-ideas
mailing list