On Saturday 02 April 2016 00:38:31 Andrew Godwin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Shai Berger <s...@platonix.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Finally found the time to go through this discussion.
> >
> > The first note that comes to mind is:
> >
> > Although it has already been pointed out more than once that positional
> > arguments cannot follow keyword arguments, you both (Andrew and Vincent)
> > keep
> > giving examples such as
> >
> > # SYNTAX ERROR
> > route('sms.receive', sender=r'\+44(?P<local_number>[0-9]+)$',
> >
> > Consumer)
> >
> > I believe the reason for that is the clash between the will to preserve
> > the current `route(channel, consumer)` syntax, which is like the
> > parallel `url(path_regex, view, **kw)` syntax, on one hand; and the
> > instinct that the
> > identifying parameters should be together, on the other hand.
> >
> > I think that the latter consideration prevails; unlike the kw parameters
> > in url(), which are essentially parameters to the view, the kw
> > parameters proposed for channel help select the consumer; and so they
> > must be adjacent to
> > the channel name -- and hence, the consumer must be the first argument.
>
> Ah, that's an interesting ordering I hadn't considered before - the problem
> is, I would have it (channel, kwargs, consumer) if I could, as generally
> when I'm reading the file I want to identify things by route. For that
> reason, I still like having the channel at the beginning as it makes it
> obvious what the rest of the line is dealing with (websocket? http? etc.)
>
Well, in that case I would consider defining the consumer as a required, but
keyword (and keyword-only in Python3) argument, specified in the end by
convention. Putting it between the channel and channel parameters is ugly IMO.
> > A second thought is about multiple keyword arguments:
> >
>
> Is there something about this method you think is better than three
> includes? Remember, routing specifies the variable inside the module
> (unlike url includes, which only specify the module) so you can still keep
> the three routing sets in the one routing.py inside the app.
>
I somehow missed this, it makes my entire argument moot. Agreed.
Thanks,
Shai.
