[Python-Dev] PEP 450 adding statistics module
fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Fri Aug 16 10:01:51 CEST 2013
On 16 Aug 2013, at 02:30, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 23:28:39 +0300, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2013, at 21:10, "Eric V. Smith" <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/15/2013 01:58 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info
>>>> <mailto:steve at pearwood.info>> wrote:
>>>> - Each scheme ended up needing to be a separate function, for ease
>>>> of both implementation and testing. So I had four private median
>>>> functions, which I put inside a class to act as namespace and avoid
>>>> polluting the main namespace. Then I needed a "master function" to
>>>> select which of the methods should be called, with all the
>>>> additional testing and documentation that entailed.
>>>> That's just an implementation issue, though, and sounds like a minor
>>>> inconvenience to the implementor rather than anything serious; I don't
>>>> think that that should dictate the API that's used.
>>>> - The API doesn't really feel very Pythonic to me. For example, we
>>>> And I guess this is subjective: conversely, the API you're proposing
>>>> doesn't feel Pythonic to me. :-) I'd like the hear the opinion of other
>>>> python-dev readers.
>>> I agree with Mark: the proposed median, median.low, etc., doesn't feel
>>> right. Is there any example of doing this in the stdlib? I suggest just
>>> median(), median_low(), etc.
>>> If we do end up keeping it, simpler than the callable singleton is:
>>>>>> def median(): return 'median'
>>>>>> def _median_low(): return 'median.low'
>>>>>> median.low = _median_low
>>>>>> del _median_low
>> There's the patch decorator in unittest.mock which provides:
>> The implementation is exactly as you suggest. (e.g. patch.object = _patch_object)
> Truthfully there are a number of things about the mock API that make me
> uncomfortable, including that one. But despite that I'm glad we
> didn't try to re-engineer it. Take that as you will :)
Hah. mock used to provide separate patch and patch_object "functions" (they're really just factory functions for classes) but "patch.object" and "patch.dict" are easy to remember and you only have to import a single object instead of a proliferation. In my experience it's been a better API. The separate function was deprecated and removed a while ago.
Other parts of the mock API and architecture are somewhat legacy - it's a six year old project with a lot of users, so it's somewhat inevitable. If starting from scratch I wouldn't do it *very* differently though.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing
More information about the Python-Dev