On 06/02/18 10:23, alister via Python-list wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:55:35 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au>
wrote:
Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes:
As one special case, I would accept this sort of code:
def f():
...
(three dots representing the special value Ellipsis)
It's a great short-hand for "stub".
I would not accept that.
An even better way to write a stub function is to write a docstring:
def frobnicate():
""" Frobnicate the spangule. """
A docstring, like any bare expression, is also a valid statement.
Writing a docstring can be done immediately, because if you're writing
a stub function you at least know the external interface of that
function.
This is true, but I'd rather have something _under_ the docstring if
possible, and "..." works well for that. A docstring with nothing
underneath doesn't look like a stub - it looks like a failed edit or
something. Having a placeholder shows that it's intentional.
ChrisA
indeed and pass was implemented for precisely this usage
why even think about possible alternatives
None shall pass.
(Seriously. I'm disappointed in all of you :-)
--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
