Re: [RFC] Named arguments

On May 5, 2020, at 2:33 PM, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:22 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: > >> subprocess.run(args, *, stdin=None, input=None, stdout=None, >> stderr=None, capture_output=False, shell=False, cwd=None, timeout=None, >> check=False, encoding=None, errors=None, text=None, env=None, >> universal_newlines=None) >> >> ... and show that to a PHP developer, they're probably going to tell me >> that this is horrible API design. They would, of course, be wrong. It's >> reasonable API design, just in a language that supports named arguments. >> > > There are so many ways in which the above fails in different ways (besed on > flags) that I can't even start to reason about the resulting chaos. That looks like a perfect use-case for table-based unit-testing. > Would rather consume a dozen of differently named (curried) versions of > this. And I would rather have one function/method with many parameters than many many different named functions/methods. Easier to learn, easier to remember, and easier to define a standard for function/method naming. Different strokes, different folks. #fwiw -Mike