Proposal: runtime validation statement
dave at pythonapocrypha.com
Mon Jul 12 19:29:34 CEST 2004
Ville Vainio wrote:
>>>>>>"Dave" == Dave Brueck <dave at pythonapocrypha.com> writes:
> Dave> Also, a developer-defined function doesn't stand out as well
> Dave> as a statement would - a statement sets it apart from normal
> Dave> function calls which are doing the actual work to solve the
> Dave> problem at hand - and it'd be easy for syntax-highlighting
> Dave> editors to color it differently too.
> It's as easy to color a function.
> We have too much statements that don't need to be statements
> already. "validate" is obvious library stuff...
I disagree - there's a clear distinction between solving the problem and
e.g. validating inputs to the problem solver, and having such checks as
a statement is a good way to implement that distinction. That's why
'assert' as a statement makes sense to me too - it and validate are sort
of "out of band" with getting the actual work done, but useful nonetheless.
Whether or not a validate keyword is a good idea should be judged
independently of your opinion of whether or not 'print' is a wart.
It's definitely not "obvious library stuff" IMO - if nothing else,
making you import a library just to validate parameters is goofy. It
would be semi-tolerable (though less than ideal) as a builtin.
More information about the Python-list