On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:55:57 -0500, John Salerno wrote: > Ben Finney wrote: >> John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> But I do like Steve's suggestion that it's better to be explicit >>> about each attribute, instead of just accepting a list of numbers >>> (but I can't help but feel that for some reason this is better, >>> because it's more general). >> >> If you pass a *mapping* of the "I-might-want-to-add-more-in-the-future" >> values, then you get both explicit *and* expandable, without an >> arbitrary unneeded sequence. >> > > Do you mean by using the **kwargs parameter?
Yes, that's what Ben is talking about. > If I do this, doesn't it > mean that *anything* could be added though? Misspelled words and > completely unrelated attributes as well? **kwargs flexibility carries a risk. You may consider it worthwhile or not. > Or does this matter as long as you are handling the processing yourself > internally and not allowing users access to the Character class? Only you can decide whether **kwargs' convenience and flexibility outweighs its risk. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
