[Python-ideas] Repurpose `assert' into a general-purpose check

Sylvain MARIE sylvain.marie at schneider-electric.com
Tue Jan 16 12:36:39 EST 2018

(trying with direct reply this time)

> Why do you do this? What's the requirement for delaying evaluation of the condition?

Thanks for challenging my poorly chosen examples :)

The primary requirement is about *catching* unwanted/uncontrolled/heterogenous exceptions happening in the underlying functions that are combined together to provide the validation means, so as to provide a uniform/consistent outcome however diverse the underlying functions are (they can return booleans or raise exceptions, or both).

In your proposal, if 'is_foo_compliant' raises an exception, it will not be caught by 'assert_valid', therefore the ValidationError will not be raised. So this is not what I want as an application developer.


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Paul Moore [mailto:p.f.moore at gmail.com] 
Envoyé : mardi 16 janvier 2018 18:01
À : Sylvain MARIE <sylvain.marie at schneider-electric.com>
Cc : Python-Ideas <python-ideas at python.org>
Objet : Re: [Python-ideas] Repurpose `assert' into a general-purpose check

I fixed the reply-to this time, looks like you're still getting messed up by Google Groups.

On 16 January 2018 at 16:25, smarie
<sylvain.marie at schneider-electric.com> wrote:
> Let's consider this example where users want to define on-the-fly one 
> of the validation functions, and combine it with another with a 'or':
>     assert_valid('surface', surf, or_(lambda x: (x >= 0) & (x < 
> 10000), is_foo_compliant), help_msg="surface should be 0=<x<10000 or 
> foo compliant")
> How ugly for something so simple ! I tried to make it slightly more 
> compact by developping a mini lambda syntax but it obviously makes it slower.

Why do you do this? What's the requirement for delaying evaluation of the condition? A validate statement in Python wouldn't be any better able to do that, so it'd be just as ugly with a statement. There's no reason I can see why I'd ever need delayed evaluation, so what's wrong with just

    assert_valid(0 <= surf < 10000 and is_foo_compliant(surf), help_msg="surface should be 0=<x<10000 or foo compliant")

> There are three reasons why having a 'validate' statement would 
> improve
> this:
>  * no more parenthesis: more elegant and readable
>  * inline use of python (1): no more use of lambda or mini_lambda, no 
> performance overhead
>  * inline use of python (2): composition would not require custom 
> function composition operators such as 'or_' (above) or mini-lambda 
> composition anymore, it could be built-in in any language element used 
> after <validate>
> resulting in
>         validate (surf >= 0) & (surf < 10000) or 
> is_foo_compliant(surf), "surface should be 0=<x<10000 or foo compliant"

So how will that work any differently than the function version I gave above? In terms of the language syntax, it would just be

    validate EXPR, EXPR

and the first EXPR will be evaluated as a boolean, and if it's false an exception will be raised with the second expression as the message.
There's no delayed evaluation involved, so a function would work exactly the same.

> (I removed the variable name alias 'surface' since I don't know if it 
> should remain or not)
> Elegant, isn't it ?

No more so than my function version, but yes far more so than yours...


This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list