[Python-Dev] Argument Clinic: what to do with builtins with non-standard signatures? (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sat Jan 25 10:20:22 CET 2014
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Argument Clinic: what to do with builtins with non-standard signatures?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Argument Clinic: what to do with builtins with non-standard signatures?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 25 January 2014 17:44, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
On 25 January 2014 01:07, Larry Hastings <larry at hastings.org> wrote:
c) Functions that accept an 'int' when they mean 'boolean' (aka the "ints instead of bools" problem)
Solution: 1) Use "bool". 2) Use "int", and I'll go relax Argument Clinic so they can use bool values as defaults for int parameters. If the temptation is to use True or False as the default, then I think that's a clear argument that these should be accepting "bool". However, expanding the accepted types is also clearly a new feature that would need a "versionchanged" in the docs for all affected functions, so I think these changes also belong in the "conversion implies semantic changes, so leave until 3.5" category.
I changed my mind (slightly) on this one. For 3.4, we can go with converting the current semantics (i.e. using "i"), and tweaking argument clinic to all bool defaults for integers.
That allows the introspection to be added sensibly, without changing the semantics of the interface.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Argument Clinic: what to do with builtins with non-standard signatures?
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Argument Clinic: what to do with builtins with non-standard signatures?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]