On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:27:12 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> John Salerno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>> > 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?
>
> No.
Well, that'll teach me to put words in your mouth.
[snip]
> If you have a group of named, semantically-related, unsequenced values,
> pass them into the function as a mapping object (a dict object).
Still, if you are doing this:
mapping_object = {"strength": roll_dice(10),
"intelligence":roll_dice(10),
"dexterity":roll_dice(10)}
my_character = Character(mapping_object)
then there is little benefit to building the dict just for the purposes of
passing it to Character(), never to use it again, not when you can do this:
my_character = Character(strength: roll_dice(10),
intelligence:roll_dice(10), dexterity:roll_dice(10))
If you happen to already have collected your character attributes in a
mapping object for some other reason, then well and good, pass it into the
function. Otherwise, well, I believe the correct container for
character attributes is a Character, not a dict.
--
Steven.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
