[Python-ideas] Positional-only parameters

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 28.02.2017 22:17, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> For technical reasons, many functions of the Python standard libraries
> implemented in C have positional-only parameters.

Keyword argument handling is comparatively slow and rarely
needed for non-optional positional parameters of built-ins.

You might make a case for optional ones, but then: how often are
these used in practice to warrant the drop in performance ?

Note: All this is different for Python methods/functions. The
overhead of keyword parsing is small compared to what Python
has to do to setup new frames for execution.

> Example:
> -------
> $ ./python
> Python 3.7.0a0 (default, Feb 25 2017, 04:30:32)
>>>> help(str.replace)
> replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /)   # <== notice "/" at the end
>     ...
>>>> "a".replace("x", "y")  # ok
> 'a'
> 
>>>> "a".replace(old="x", new="y")   # ERR!
> TypeError: replace() takes at least 2 arguments (0 given)
> -------
> 
> When converting the methods of the builtin str type to the internal
> "Argument Clinic" tool (tool to generate the function signature,
> function docstring and the code to parse arguments in C), I asked if
> we should add support for keyword arguments in str.replace(). The
> answer was quick: no! It's a deliberate design choice.
> 
> Quote of Yury Selivanov's message:
> """
> I think Guido explicitly stated that he doesn't like the idea to
> always allow keyword arguments for all methods. I.e. `str.find('aaa')`
> just reads better than `str.find(needle='aaa')`. Essentially, the idea
> is that for most of the builtins that accept one or two arguments,
> positional-only parameters are better.
> """
> http://bugs.python.org/issue29286#msg285578
> 
> I just noticed a module on PyPI to implement this behaviour on Python functions:
> 
>    https://pypi.python.org/pypi/positional
> 
> My question is: would it make sense to implement this feature in
> Python directly? If yes, what should be the syntax? Use "/" marker?
> Use the @positional() decorator?
> 
> Do you see concrete cases where it's a deliberate choice to deny
> passing arguments as keywords?
>
> Don't you like writing int(x="123") instead of int("123")? :-) (I know
> that Serhiy Storshake hates the name of the "x" parameter of the int
> constructor ;-))

... and that's another reason why to avoid them: the naming
of positional parameters was never really taken into account
when writing the C functions and it does even change
sometimes without warning.

> By the way, I read that "/" marker is unknown by almost all Python
> developers, and [...] syntax should be preferred, but
> inspect.signature() doesn't support this syntax. Maybe we should fix
> signature() and use [...] format instead?

+1

> Replace "replace(self, old, new, count=-1, /)" with "replace(self,
> old, new[, count=-1])" (or maybe even not document the default
> value?).
> 
> Python 3.5 help (docstring) uses "S.replace(old, new[, count])".

Using "count=-1" looks confusing when the method doesn't
allow keyword arguments, so it's probably better to use the 3.5
style and document the defaults in the doc-string.

AFAIR, some of these don't even have a (documented) default value.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Feb 28 2017)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
>>> Python Database Interfaces ...           http://products.egenix.com/
>>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...           http://zope.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________

::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
                      http://www.malemburg.com/