On 10/18/21 3:20 AM, Mathew Elman wrote:
I don't know if this has been suggested before, or if this is outlandishly impossible (though I would be surprised if it was), so apologies in advance if so.
I have on occasion come across a situation where I use/write a signature like this:
def insert_x_into_y(x, y):
Ugh, that is horrible.
or worse
def insert_into(item, container): ...
Actually, that looks fine -- the previous example was too verbose.
where, despite a driving idea of python syntax being [readable] in english, the function signature is distinctly not english.
Where did you get that idea? "executable psuedo-code" is a far cry from English.
What would be really cool, is if python let you write function signatures like this:
def insert_(item)_into_(container): ...
where the arguments dispersed between the function name are positional only argument, and any key word arguments would have to go at the end. It would create a function that could be called as:
insert_(1)_into_(my_list)
Why wouldn't you just use `my_list.insert(1) ?
This sort of signature is particularly annoying for boolean checks like `isinstance` (N.B. I am _not_ suggesting changing any builtins), which one could wrap with:
def is_(obj)_an_instance_of_(type): return isinstance(obj, type)
Sorry, way too verbose for me. It is definitely possible to be *too* explicit. While I agree it would be cool (and having written what I thought were some pretty cool things, like not needing to include the value for an enum member), in practice cool and get quite irritating. -- ~Ethan~