| msg74727 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) *  |
Date: 2008-10-14 11:01 |
| In the C library, fopen() have two arguments: filename and the mode, and open() has three arguments: filename, mode and flags. In Python, open() has 7 arguments: - file - mode - buffering - encoding - errors - newline - closefd Most programs only use the two first arguments, but buffering is sometimes set. Eg. open(filename, "r") or open(filename, "wb", 0). I think that only the file and mode arguments are easy to understand, the others have to be specified using their name. Eg. open(filename, "wb", buffering=0) or open(filename, "r", encoding="GBK"). I wrote a patch to use keyword only arguments, and another to fix some libraries and the unit tests. explicit_open.patch needs review. I don't know the best way to create a dictionary. Py_BuildValue() may be used to write a smaller patch. -- open(file, mode, *, buffering, ...) may be replaced by open(file, mode, buffering, *, ...) to keep compatibility with Python2, but I read somewhere that Python3 breaks the compatibility and a 2to3 fixer can be used to fix open(). |
|
|
| msg74732 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) * |
Date: 2008-10-14 11:45 |
| It's true that the order of arguments is difficult to remember correctly. However I think this deserves Guido's approval. About the implementation: To build the kw dict, did you consider using Py_BuildValue? Something like: kw = Py_BuildValue("{si ss ss}", "buffering", buffering, "encoding", encoding, "errors", errors, ...); is simpler to write, if you consider error handling. |
|
|
| msg74736 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2008-10-14 12:11 |
| socket.makefile() already uses keyword only argument, but buffering is not a keyword only argument: def makefile(self, mode="r", buffering=None, *, encoding=None, newline=None): |
|
|
| msg74740 - (view) |
Author: Amaury Forgeot d'Arc (amaury.forgeotdarc) * |
Date: 2008-10-14 12:27 |
| Do you suggest that 'buffering' should be allowed as positional argument? This would help with migration from 2.x, where open() accepts 3 positional arguments: open(...) open(name[, mode[, buffering]]) -> file object And no need to 'fix' the tests. |
|
|
| msg74741 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2008-10-14 12:41 |
| > Do you suggest that 'buffering' should be allowed > as positional argument? No, I would prefer to keep also two positional arguments: file and mode. I hate open(filename, 'r', s): I don't know what is s, the buffering or the encoding? And I think that beginner would also be distribed by this third argument. Sometimes, it's easy to understand the 3 arguments of a function, like re.match("[a-z]", t, re.IGNORECASE). But for open(), I would prefer explicit arguments. And so socket.makefile() should also be "fixed" to keep only 2 positional arguments. It's my opinion and if you really want to keep compatibility with Python2, keep the 3 positional arguments. |
|
|
| msg74746 - (view) |
Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * |
Date: 2008-10-14 14:49 |
| This is certainly out of scope for 3.0. Remember, for 3.0 we're trying to get a release out of the door, not cram in new features, no matter how small. Beyond 3.0, I'm still rather reluctant -- I expect most users will be wise and use keyword args anyway; I'm not sure what we buy by forcing this. I'd be okay with documenting the recommendation to always use keyword args for any argument added in 3.0 or later (which would leave buffering a positional argument -- I don't even know its name since it has been a positional argument since the 1.0 days). |
|
|
| msg83841 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2009-03-20 01:21 |
| Guido> Beyond 3.0, I'm still rather reluctant Ok ok, let's close this bad idea. |
|
|