Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]

Matthew Fitzgibbons elessar at nienna.org
Thu Jul 31 19:59:11 CEST 2008


Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:23:05 -0600, Matthew Fitzgibbons wrote:
> 
>> If you're expecting a list (and only a list)
>> then your point makes sense. 'if x' can get you into trouble if you
>> _don't_ want its polymorphism.
> 
> "if x" is hardly unique in that way. If you're expecting a list, and only 
> a list, "len(x) != 0" will get you in trouble if somebody passes a string 
> or a dictionary. I don't see any reason why we should single out "if x" 
> as dangerous in the face of invalid types. With the exception of the "is" 
> and "is not" operators, nothing in Python is guaranteed to work with any 
> imaginable object. Even print can fail, if the object's __str__ method 
> raises an exception.
> 
>  
>> Although, if my function is expecting a list, my preference is to do:
>>
>> if not isinstance(x, list):
>>      raise SomeMeaningfulException()
>> # do stuff with the list
>>
>> I put my type checking at the top of the function, so readers can
>> reference it easily.
> 
> And thus you break duck-typing and upset anybody who wants to pass a 
> sequence that doesn't inherit directly from list.
> 
> There are other (and arguably better, although more labour-intensive) 
> techniques for defensive programming that don't break duck-typing. You 
> can google for Look Before You Leap and Easier To Ask Forgiveness Than 
> Permission for more information. Alex Martelli has a fine recipe in the 
> Python Cookbook -- search for the recipe "Checking if an object has the 
> necessary attributes".
> 
> But in a nutshell, here's a toy example:
> 
> def spam(seq):
>     try:
>         seq.append
>         seq.extend
>         seq[0] = seq[0]
>     except Exception:
>         raise TypeError("argument isn't sufficiently sequence-like")
>     # No exceptions expected from here on
>     seq.append(seq[0])
>     seq.extend([1,2,3])
>     seq[0] = "spam"
> 
> 
> 
> 

Yes, I know it breaks duck typing, which is why I do it only very 
rarely, and never with e.g. sequence types. If I use ifinstance for type 
checking, it's because I need some _very_ specific class, almost always 
one that I wrote. My more usual use case for ifinstance is to figure out 
how to handle a particular object using introspection.

That said, your example is still helpful. It's a good approach, and I 
should use it more often. Although I'd also lean toward hasattr and 
iscallable and ordinary ifs instead of the try ... except where 
possible. Depending on what you put in the try ... except, you risk 
masking legit exceptions.

Ahhh, Programing. Where no rule of thumb seems to last five minutes.

-Matt



More information about the Python-list mailing list