[Python-ideas] Unpack of sequences
tjreedy at udel.edu
Thu Aug 30 03:52:47 CEST 2012
On 8/29/2012 9:07 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm personally less opposed to ideas for a new assignment statement that
>> explicitly treats the lhs as a parameter definition and the rhs as an
>> argument list and binds values to names accordingly, but even that would be
>> a hard sell.
> Expanding on this, now that I'm back at a real computer.
> Argument-parameter binding is actually a fairly powerful name binding
I have described this as cross-namespace assignment. The important point
is that aliasing between and within namespaces has same effect vis-a-vis
> quite distinct from ordinary assignment and tuple unpacking.
> It consists of two separate (often confused) components:
> - the parameter specification
> - the argument list
Analogous to left and right sides of assignment.
They were once more similar than they are now.
> The parameter spec is what appears in the function *definition*, and
> is really the main item of interest reported by the new
> inspect.Signature objects in 3.3.
> A parameter spec allows you to do several things:
> - define the names that will be bound locally
> - define default values to be assigned to those names
> - provide named holders for excess positional and keyword arguments
> - indicate that certain values can *only* be supplied by name, and not
> by position
> The argument list is what appears in a function *call*, and also has
> several interesting features:
> - can provide explicit positional arguments
> - can provide explicit keyword arguments
> - can provide an iterable of positional arguments
> - can provide a mapping of additional keyword arguments
> It *may* make sense to decouple this name binding operation from
> function calls (and Signature.bind) and make it available as a
> language primitive in the form of a statement.
> However, it's *not* the same thing as an ordinary assignment statement
> or tuple unpacking, and we shouldn't try to jam it implicitly into the
> existing assignment statement.
There seems to be too much to jam very well.
> There are certainly valid use cases for such a construct. One example
> is support for positional only arguments. Currently, handling
> positional only arguments with reasonable error messages requires
> something like the following:
> def _bind_args(a=None, b=None):
> return a, b
> def f(*args):
> a, b = _bind_args(*args)
> Note that the "_bind_args" function exists solely to get access to the
> argument/parameter binding behaviour. Another example is unpacking
> values from a dictionary, which can be done using a similar technique:
> def _bind_kwds(a=None, b=None, **other):
> return a, b, other
> def f(mapping):
> a, b, other = _bind_kwds(**mapping)
> The obvious form for such a statement is "LHS OP RHS", however
> syntactic ambiguity in the evaluation of both the LHS and RHS
> (relative to normal assigment) would likely prevent that. As a sketch,
> I'll present a notation inspired by Ruby's block parameter syntax and
> emphasising the link to def statements:
> def f(*args):
> |a=None, b=None| def= *args
> def f(mapping):
> |a=None, b=None, **other| def= **mapping
> This is fairly magical, but hopefully the intent is clear: the LHS is
> enclosed in "|" characters to resolve the syntactic ambiguity problem
> for the LHS, while a form of augmented assignment "def=" is used to
I would call it 'call assignment' or 'extended assignment' to clearly
differentiate it from current augmented assignment, which it is not.
(=) would be a possible syntax
I have no idea whether the parser could handle this
> prevent assignment chaining and to resolve any syntactic ambiguity for
> the RHS. It may be that there's no solution to this problem that
> *doesn't* look magical.
> However, if people are interested in an enhanced form of name binding
> that's more powerful than the current assignment statement and tuple
> unpacking, then liberating parameter binding from function calls is
> the way to go. Unlike other proposals, it doesn't make the language
> more complicated, because parameter binding is something people
> learning Python already need to understand. Indeed, in some ways it
> would make the language *simpler*, since it would allow the
> explanation of parameter binding to be clearly decoupled from the
> explanation of function calls and definitions.
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Python-ideas