RetroSearch Browse

Tue Jan 27 00:32:49 CET 2015 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-January/137934.html

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:07:08 +0100, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:28:24 -0500
> "R. David Murray" <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> > 
> > My use case is a configuration method that takes keyword parameters.
> > In tests I want to specify a bunch of default values for the
> > configuration, but I want individual test methods to be able
> > to override those values.  So I have a bunch of code that does
> > the equivalent of:
> > 
> > from test.support import default_config
> > [...]
> >     def _prep(self, config_overrides):
> >         config = default.config.copy()
> >         config.update(config_overrides)
> >         my_config_object.load(**config)
> >         ....
> > 
> > With the current proposal I could instead do:
> > 
> >     def _prep(self, config_overrides):
> >         my_config_object.load(**default_config, **config_overrides)
> 
> It sounds like the _prep() method exists once in your code base, this
> isn't an idiom you are duplicating everywhere. The incentive for a
> syntactic shortcut looks pretty thin.

Something similar exists between five and ten times (I didn't go in and
count) in my current code base, in various specific forms for different
test classes.

--David

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2015-January/137934.html below:

[Python-Dev] Any grammar experts?