Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>>* Indicate that arguments are optional for most builtin type constructors.
>>
>> > ...
>>
>>>! \begin{funcdesc}{bool}{\optional{x}}
>>
>>This sounds weird:
>>
>>* Why should object constructors have an optional argument without
>> a default value ? Why aren't these default values documented ?
>>
>>* This "feature" sounds like it will hide programming errors.
>>
>>* What is the purpose of the "feature" ?
>
> I'm not following whether you don't like the implementation or
> documentation. My patch just documents the existing implementation.
Your patch just made me aware of this fact (whether or not it's
a good feature, having accurate documentation is always good :-).
> The implementation has been in for a while (GvR checked in Alex's
> patch for www.python.org/sf/724135 ). The news item reads:
>
> - bool() called without arguments now returns False rather than
> raising an exception. This is consistent with calling the
> constructors for the other builtin types -- called without argument
> they all return the false value of that type. (SF patch #724135)
I seriously question the usefulness of such an approach. It
doesn't seem to buy us anything and is likely to hide typos
or progamming errors.
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Software directly from the Source (#1, Jun 11 2003)
>>> Python/Zope Products & Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/
>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
EuroPython 2003, Charleroi, Belgium: 13 days left
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4