On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:22 PM Anders Hovmöller <bo...@killingar.net> wrote:
> For example: > django-master/django/http/multipartparser.py 225 > Sorry, I didn't recognize this as a link on first read. I'll provide a link here to the code in context. https://github.com/django/django/blob/e7a0a5c8b21f5ad1a0066bd0dfab84466b474e15/django/http/multipartparser.py#L225 This is a fairly large function that might benefit from being refactored to clarify the code. On the other hand, I don't advocate creating too many helper functions with only one callsite. The one thing that catches my eye is the repeated use of ``exhaust`` in the else clause to several layers of the nested try and if blocks. It's a bit too large for me to make sense of it quickly. My apologies for not offering a holistic refactor. That’s positional because keyword is more painful. > Why would keyword arguments be more painful here? They've already split the call across 4 lines. Why not go a bit further and use keyword args to make it 6 or 7 lines? Maybe they decided it reads fine as it is. Sure. Run this script against django: > https://gist.github.com/boxed/e60e3e19967385dc2c7f0de483723502 > > It will print all function calls that are positional and have > 2 > arguments. Not a single one is good as is, all would be better with keyword > arguments. > I disagree. Please expand your assertion by explaining why an example is not good as-is and would be better with keyword arguments.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/