3 ms·

I'm not sure why they removed the ability to destructure sequences in args. It bugs me sometimes as well. There's probably a long discussion about the rationa

by xapata 6y ago

I'm not sure why they removed the ability to destructure sequences in args. It bugs me sometimes as well. There's probably a long discussion about the rationale in some PEP and an even longer email thread.

mesaframe 6y ago
They did? Afaik, it's there.
- xapata 6y ago
  In [1]: def foo(a, (b, c)): ...: pass File "<ipython-input-1-8f113877c7ef>", line 1 def foo(a, (b, c)): ^ SyntaxError: invalid syntax
  - mesaframe 6y ago
    Ok, I thought about *operator.
pansa2 6y ago
> There's probably a long discussion about the rationale in some PEP PEP 3113 -- Removal of Tuple Parameter Unpacking: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3113/
- xapata 6y ago
  That's a decent argument. It's more typing (in both senses!) to use a specific type as the parameter instead of unpacking in the signature, but it's just as or more readable that way.
carapace 6y ago
Yeah, I was so bummed when they did that. I had a whole library of functions for a stack-based interpreter that destructured the stack in the function sig, and it was sooooo coooool... def add((a, (b, stack))): return a + b, stack def uncons(((head, tail), stack)): return tail, (head, stack) &c...