I often find myself defining function args with list[SomeClass] type and think "do I really care that it's a list? No, tuple or Generator is fine, too". I then tend to use Iterable[SomeClass] or Collection[SomeClass]. But when it comes to str, I really don't like that solution, because if you have this function:

def foo(bar: Collection[str]) -> None:
    pass

Then calling foo("hello") is fine, too, because "hello" is a collection of strings with length 1, which would not be fine if I just used list[str] in the first place. What would you do in a situation like this?

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Look at the official docs. There is a table part way down stating which methods are available for each. I pick the one closest to how I use it. So if I'm not mutating I'll use Sequence over List to inform the caller I'm treating as immutable and to safe guard myself from mutating it in my implementation via static type analysis.

https://docs.python.org/3/library/collections.abc.html

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

str matches most of these contracts, though, requiring additional checks if a str was passed or one of these collections containing strings.

[–] pythonoob@programming.dev 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure why you wouldn't just use packing to pass in a list of some objects that you need iterate over? Isn't it normally bad form to pass lists as arguments? I feel like I've read this somewhere but can't cite it

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, that's a good alternative for Collection[str] but not so much for Iterable[str] as you lose the lazyness of Generators.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I’m rusty on my type hints because I’ve been living in lua land lately, but from ye olde PEP 20

Explicit is better than implicit.

I’d combine them so the hint was something like Union[Collection[str], str]

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But what if you actually don't want str to be valid?

[–] m_f@midwest.social 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If you're writing code that generic, why wouldn't you want str to be passed in? For example, Counter('hello') is perfectly valid and useful. OTOH, average_length('hello') would always be 1 and not be useful. OTOOH, maybe there's a valid reason for someone to do that. If I've got a list of items of various types and want to find the highest average length, I'd want to do max(map(average_length, items)) and not have that blow up just because there's a string in there that I know will have an average length of 1.

So this all depends on the specifics of the function you're writing at the time. If you're really sure that someone shouldn't be passing in a str, I'd probably raise a ValueError or a warning, but only if you're really sure. For the most part, I'd just use appropriate type hints and embrace the phrase "we're all consenting adults here".

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

Maybe something like passing in a list of patterns which should match some data, or a list of files/urls to download would be examples of where I would like to be generic, but taking in a string would be bad.

But the real solution be to convert it to foo(*args: str). But maybe if you take 2 Container[str] as input so you can't use *args. But no real world example comes to mind.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'd leave a docstring:

def foo(bor: Iterable[str]) -> None:
    """foos bars by doing x and y to each bar"""

Type hinting isn't intended to prevent all classes of errors, it's intended to provide documentation to the caller. Iterable[str] provides that documentation, and a docstring gives additional context if needed. If you want strict typing assurances, Python probably isn't the tool you're looking for.

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This + an assert seems like the way to go. I think that str should never have fulfilled these contracts in the first place and should have a .chars property that returns a list of one-character-strings. But this change would break existing code, so it is not going to happen.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

IDK, I think strings being simple lists is less surprising than having a unique type. Most other languages model them that way, and it's nice to be able to use regular list actions to interact with them.

It's really not something I'm likely to run into in practice. The only practical way I see messing this up is with untrusted inputs, but I sanitize those anyway.

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, you're right. It also a lot of benefits.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Kids these days and their type hinting. Back in my day, all objects were ducks, and we liked it!

[–] wasabi@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

🦆