trio
trio copied to clipboard
trio.run() should take **kwargs in addition to *args
this would greatly enhance usability — especially for function declarations like:
async def request(method, url, *, pool=None, preload_content=False):
Hmm, this has come up a few times, and it's a totally reasonable question – I think we need some sort of FAQ entry for this... maybe in the tutorial? Will think about it.
Anyway, here's the problem: a function like run
has to take the thing to run, and it also has to take its own arguments to configure how it runs it. So we need some way to distinguish which arguments are for which, but all the possible solutions involve some kind of awkwardness.
BTW, in ordinary usage you wouldn't use trio.run
to call request
, that wouldn't make much sense – you normally call trio.run
once at the very top of your program, so it's usually something like trio.run(main)
. (I guess you're looking at making synchronous shim wrappers or something?) But there are a bunch of functions in trio that have this same problem: nursery.start_soon
, run_sync_in_worker_thread
, etc. etc., so we do need a general solution.
What we do is recommend people do from functools import partial
and then trio.run(partial(request, method, url, pool=my_pool))
or whatever. I'm not a huge fan, but all the alternatives seem worse. Some advantages of this are: (a) it works uniformly for async and sync callables, (b) it's ordinary standard Python, so once you learn it you can use it everywhere, with or without trio, (c) partial
objects support introspection, so e.g. if you start a task like this and then later use trio's debugging interfaces to print out the task tree, then you'll see that trio has figured out that this task is running a function named request
, not one named partial
or <lambda>
or something, (d) it allows extra arguments to be added, which is kind of a niche thing but important for nursery.start
(note: different from nursery.start_soon
), (e) the syntax really isn't that bad, and in particular supports all of Python's normal funcall syntax like partial(request, *args, extra_arg, something=whatever, **my_kwargs)
. The left edge looks a little funny, but otherwise it's using function call syntax to represent a function call.
Rejected alternatives include:
-
YOLO it up:
run
takes its arguments, any unrecognized arguments are passed on to the called function. But if we did this, then we could never add any new kwargs torun
(or similar functions) without breaking backcompat, which isn't workable in a foundational library like trio that needs to (eventually) be super careful about backcompat. -
Reserve underscored kwarg names as being for
trio.run
, and the rest get passed on to the function being called: this is kinda gross, and doesn't really solve the problem, because there's nothing that says an arbitrary function can't take kwargs that start with underscores. In particular, by implementing this we would be defining a dozen such functions! And some of them you might want to pass to each other in unusual-but-they-happen situations. -
Use a special argument for arguments to
run
, likedef run(fn, *args, **kwargs, run_args={})
: this is super awkward to use and document (the signature no longer tells you what arguments you can pass inrun_args
), plus still has the issue of potential kwarg name collisions (what iffn
has arun_args
argument). -
Use a special arguments for kwargs for the function, like
def run(fn, *args, *, fn_kwargs={}, ...)
: this is uglier to use and read thanpartial
(since now you have to write kwargs using dict syntax, while partial uses call syntax), and it's still an idiosyncratic special trick we'd be forcing people to learn. If we're going to make people learn an idiosyncratic trick anyway,partial
is much more generally useful. -
Allow raw coroutine objects, like
def run(fn(*args, **kwargs), ...)
: it doesn't solve the problem for variants that take sync functions likerun_sync_in_worker_thread
, it doesn't work for more sophisticatednursery
-like objects that need to control how they run the function passed tonursery.start_soon
(think: Erlang-style supervisors that can restart services after a crash), and it would make it impossible for us to ever fix the super-annoying wart that new users always run into where they forget a mandatoryawait
and Python doesn't give them a proper error.
If you've got a better idea definitely do let me know but... what we do now really is the best option available, AFAICT :-).
a function like run has to take the thing to run, and it also has to take its own arguments to configure how it runs it.
Here's another option I don't see listed. What about not supporting passing configuration options directly to run()
at all? Instead, if non-default behavior is desired, the caller can instantiate, say, a TrioRunner
object with those options and use runner.run()
. It looks like you're almost doing that here already anyways, but with a Runner
class that has a slightly different responsibility, and perhaps not exposed as part of the public API.
There's something to be said for a clean function signature that doesn't mix arguments for async_fn
with arguments for run
. It also provides more options for configuring run()
and may age better, too, because you won't have to add more and more kwargs over time. (One of them is already called restrict_keyboard_interrupt_to_checkpoints
:), which might be better as an attribute.)
What about not supporting passing configuration options directly to
run()
at all? Instead, if non-default behavior is desired, the caller can instantiate, say, aTrioRunner
object with those options and userunner.run()
.
Interesting idea! And for trio.run
alone, this would probably work. But, the same problem happens for:
-
trio.run
-
nursery.start_soon
-
nursery.start
-
trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread
-
trio.BlockingTrioPortal.run
-
trio.BlockingTrioPortal.run_sync
-
trio.hazmat.spawn_system_task
-
trio.hazmat.TrioToken.run_sync_soon
And then trio-asyncio has the same problem for its functions to call trio-from-asyncio and vice-versa, and I'm sure this will keep cropping up around the ecosystem.
Adding a configobject interface for all of these seems really cumbersome? And I'd rather have just one solution to this problem that gets used everywhere, so you only have to learn it once, rather than two different ones so then you have to learn both solutions, and which solution is used where.
Okay, good to know. There's yet another hybrid pattern / approach you could use for all of these. Namely, rather than calling, say, runner.run()
and putting the config options in the runner
object, you could have a single options
argument that houses all of the config options and optionally pass that to run()
.
More generally, using this pattern means that you would have at most one reserved keyword argument name per function. The argument name could potentially be the same across all of the functions, though the class could vary. When you want to add more options to some function, you could add to the appropriate class without needing to touch any of the function signatures. Maybe you could even do something clever with an optional positional argument, so you wouldn't need to choose and reserve a name.
Ah, yeah, that's similar to the run_args={}
idea I mentioned above, except using a class instead of a dict to pass the options. That has the advantage that the class could use funcall syntax to specify the options (options=trio.RunOptions(a=1, b=2)
vs. options={"a": 1, "b": 2}
). You do have to define the class (though maybe just using a single Options
class that just saves its kwargs would be enough for everyone?), and with one reserved kwarg you still have the possibility for collisions.
Maybe you could even do something clever with an optional positional argument, so you wouldn't need to choose and reserve a name.
That's true, you could do something like:
def run(*args, **kwargs):
# Real code would need more fiddly error-checking but this should give the idea
if isinstance(args[0], Options):
options = args.pop(0)
fn = args.pop(0)
...
...and then it'd be used like:
run(fn, foo, bar)
# or
run(Options(clock=whatever), fn, foo, bar)
This feels very surprising though in the Python context.
Again, these can work but... the only real downside to partial
is that it forces people to learn one quirky convention, but everything else does that too.
(FWIW, I stole the partial
convention from asyncio, so I think that means it also has the Guido Seal Of Approval ;-).)
Maybe the tutorial should just get a short discussion of partial
+ a link to this thread for those who are curious about the details.
Thanks for summarizing. You stated it well. Yeah, I'm familiar with the functools.partial
approach required by asyncio
. But it always feels unsatisfying and never natural. For example, each time you're faced with the decision of whether to pass the *args
in the partial()
call, or pass only the **kwargs
and leave the *args
for run()
. The latter spreads the arguments across more than one invocation, which isn't ideal for code comprehension. And if the former should be used, then why not insist that partial()
always be used? That way there'd be only "one way." (Actually, some parts of asyncio's API do require partial
, like Future.add_done_callback()
.)
That has the advantage that the class could use funcall syntax to specify the options (options=trio.RunOptions(a=1, b=2) vs. options={"a": 1, "b": 2}).
It might be worth pointing out that you can also use funcall syntax for dicts, e.g. options=dict(a=1, b=2)
, though it wouldn't do argument name checking like a class would provide. I often do this for cases where the dict value will wind up as kwargs
for some function.
Incidentally, if you'll indulge me, I can't help mentioning a vague, not-fully-formed idea I've had for some time, which is for Python to expose an object that could be used to encapsulate *args
and **kwargs
in a single object (e.g. pkargs = Args(*args, **kwargs)
). It would be some marriage of a tuple and a dict and allow passing *args
and **kwargs
to a function using a single value (e.g. func(***pkargs)
or a similar syntax). Do you know if something like this has ever been proposed?
For example, each time you're faced with the decision of whether to pass the
*args
in thepartial()
call, or pass only the**kwargs
and leave the*args
forrun()
. The latter spreads the arguments across more than one invocation, which isn't ideal for code comprehension.
I guess my convention is to always use either run(fn, arg1, arg2, run_arg=...)
or run(partial(fn, arg1, arg2, kwarg=something), run_arg=...)
. I agree that run(partial(fn, kwarg=something), arg1, arg2)
would be very weird style.
And if the former should be used, then why not insist that
partial()
always be used? That way there'd be only "one way."
Yeah, it really comes down to taste. On balance I think the advantages of being able to write run(fn, arg1, arg2)
are enough to make it worthwhile, but if you'd rather write run(partial(fn, arg1, arg2))
then go for it I guess :-).
(Actually, some parts of
asyncio
's API do require partial, likeFuture.add_done_callback()
.)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It would be some marriage of a tuple and a dict and allow passing
*args
and**kwargs
to a function using a single value (e.g.func(***pkargs)
or a similar syntax). Do you know if something like this has ever been proposed?
Huh, no, I haven't seen that idea before.
Personally I'd like to see python add syntax-level support for partial application, then the equivalent of run(partial(fn, arg1, arg2))
is always what happens.
@buhman if you can convince python-dev of that then we can certainly revisit this :-).
Duplicate of #88, similar to python-attrs/attrs#22.
(FWIW I'm very strongly in favor of partial
instead of adding **kwargs
)
Aliasing partial
(e.g., as P
) can reduce the pain and visual clutter:
from functools import partial as P
trio.run(P(func, a, b, c=42))
I have suggested, half in jest, that trio should add trio.withargs
or something as an alias for functools.partial
, to make it feel less weird and scary.
It might actually be worth considering seriously.
There was a substantial discussion/brainstorming session about this in chat yesterday, starting around here: https://gitter.im/python-trio/general?at=5c19957cb8760c21bbed7ee9
I think there are 3 reasons there's ongoing tension here: (1) intuitively it seems like people want to pass through kwargs to their function a lot more than they want to use the relatively obscure configuration arguments like start_soon(..., name="myname")
or run_sync_in_worker_thread(..., cancellable=True)
so it feels like passing through kwargs should be the shorter/easier to read version, and it isn't. This is something we could check by looking at real code. (2) this creates pressure to prefer positional arguments in new APIs, which on the margin means sacrificing other considerations, like readability, (3) partial
is jargony and obscure and requires an extra import, which are bad things in a common operation.
Some ideas from the thread:
- make
nursery.start_soon(fn, args(posarg, kw=whatever))
the One Way to call things while passing args. -
nursery.start_soon[options(name="thing")](fn, posarg, kw=whatever)
. Seems weird and syntax is similar to how PEP 484 does generic constructors (e.g.l = List[int]()
). -
nursery.start_soon.add_options(name="thing")(fn, posarg, kw=whatever)
-
nursery.start_soon(fn, posarg, kw=whatever, start_soon_name="thing")
(ortrio_name
or something, maybe, though then we'd lose the ability to error out if someone passes an unrecognized kwarg from the future) -
nursery.with_options(name="thing").start_soon(fn, posarg, kw=whatever)
- split into
nursery.start_soon
andnursery.start_soon_configured
where the former only accepts arguments tofn
, and the latter looks like what we have now.
Occasionally there are rumblings about adding some kind of macro/quoting syntax to Python. If that happens I guess we could have nursery.start_soon!(fn(posarg, kw=whatever), name="thing")
, which would look lovely. But it would require stack introspection on every call, which might be too expensive for this.
None of these strike me as obviously superior to what we're doing now, but there are some new ideas I wanted to capture.
I kinda like nursery.with_options(...).start_soon
, actually.
More brainstorming in chat: https://gitter.im/python-trio/general?at=5c4a4449f780a1521f638f59
Put my 2¢ in @ https://gist.github.com/njsmith/ad4fc82578239646ccdf986ae3ca07c1
Curious if anyone else thinks that's a good api?
s/config/options/with_options/add_options
depending on taste.
Another idea, see https://gitter.im/python-trio/general?at=5c4b3e3e20b78635b67fa78e
Basically this would allow you to call .start_soon(fn, *args, **kwargs)
or .start_soon(**start_soon_options)(fn, *args, **kwargs)
, which is syntactically as minimal as you can get
It's certainly possible to switch behaviour on whether or not fn
is passed in but that's probably too much black-magic for my tastes.
The verbosity of options/config/with_options does grate a little but it has the benefit of being pretty explicit and obvious.
Another api I was considering was forcing users to use a method to call the func, thereby leaving the __call__
free to configure the options - e.g.
class takes_callable(object):
def __init__(self, wrapped_fn, **options):
self.wrapped_fn = wrapped_fn
self.options = options
def call(self, fn, *args, **kwargs):
return self.wrapped_fn(
partial(fn, *args, **kwargs),
**self.options
)
def __call__(self, **options):
return takes_callable(self.wrapped_fn, **options)
In [41]: @takes_callable
...: def run(fn, **options):
...: print(f"options = {options!r}")
...: return fn()
In [42]: def func(*args, **kwargs):
...: print(args)
...: print(kwargs)
In [43]: run.call(func, 1, 2, q=3)
options = {}
(1, 2)
{'q': 3}
In [44]: run(clock=None).call(func, 1, 2, q=3)
options = {'clock': None}
(1, 2)
{'q': 3}
I think this might be a cleaner api but also less obvious/discoverable
IMO the run*()
/start*()
/spawn*()
methods all need to transform a function call (function + parameters) into a task that will be run/started/spawned sooner or later with possibly some additional options on how to do that.
Splitting the spec of the function call over multiple parameters of the run*()
/start*()
/spawn*()
methods is not a good idea as this is something belonging tightly together and that is what partial(fn, *args, **kw)
does, storing the parameters in a single object though the name of the method is sub optimal for trio's purpose.
As trio does not necessarily need the __call__
functionality it could just use partial()
for storing the info and take fn
, *args
and **kw
from that object when creating the underlying Task()
so that partial()
is not on the call stack.
trio
could import partial
under a different name (or declare a class that just stores its arguments in its __init__()
, unfortunately Task()
is already taken and FuncCall()
a bit long, perhaps FC
?,
E.g. start_soon(async_fc, name=None)
with async_fc = FC(async_fn, *args, **kw)
would allow to extend the run*/start*/spawn* methods by other positional or keyword parameters.
Doing some paid work tonight, I'm being annoyed again by having to use functools.partial
every time I call run_sync_in_worker_thread
.
I think at this point we can be fairly confident we've exhausted all the different combinations of .with_options
and variants, and they're all pretty awful.
I'm thinking about revisiting one of the ideas we rejected early on: of using underscores to mark configuration-kwargs, versus no-underscore to mark passthrough-kwargs. So example usage would be:
await trio.run(main, _clock=MyClock)
nursery.start_soon(async_fn, arg1, arg2, kwarg=foo, otherkwarg=bar, _name="something")
await trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread(container.logs, stdout=True, stderr=False, _limiter=my_limiter)
await serve_tcp(handler, _port=80)
await serve_ssl_over_tcp(handler, _port=443, _ssl_context=my_context)
One downside is that it's weird-looking. But I guess we'd get used to it? I think serve_tcp
and serve_ssl_over_tcp
are the only two functions where we want to pass both an arbitrary callable + mandatory kwargs (see #563), so they're the most affected. It does seem easier to explain and to use than all the .with_options(...)
ideas proposed above. I'm not super-excited about the looks, but I can imagine we might decide that using partial
all the time is annoying enough to overcome this downside.
The more technical potential downside is lack of compositionality/universality: what if we want to pass through a kwarg that starts with an underscore? For example, nursery.start_soon(trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread, sync_fn, _cancellable=True, _name=sync_fn)
– notice that _cancellable
is supposed to go to run_sync_in_worker_thread
, while _name
is supposed to go to start_soon
. I think our full set of options are:
-
Pass through unrecognized kwargs, even if they start with underscore: this is definitely not workable, because it would mean that if we ever added any new kwargs to these functions it would be a breaking change.
-
Use some sort of quoting rule: for example, any kwarg with double-underscores gets one underscore stripped off, and then is passed through. So our example becomes:
nursery.start_soon( trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread, sync_fn, __cancellable=True, _name=sync_fn, )
Or, slightly more complicated but maybe nicer to look at, we could look at the kwargs, and of them, all the ones with the maximum number of underscores get taken by the top-level fn, and the rest get passed through. So our example would become:
nursery.start_soon( trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread, sync_fn, _cancellable=True, __name=sync_fn, )
-
Document that if they really want to pass-through underscored kwargs, they should use
partial
:nursery.start_soon( partial(trio.run_sync_in_worker_thread, sync_fn, _cancellable=True), _name=sync_fn) )
Given how rarely this situation arises, handling it with
partial
doesn't seem like a huge deal. Also, if we started with this option, then we'd have the option to later extend it to one of the quoting options above, without breaking backcompat. So if we're going to do this at all, then this seems like the variant to start with.
The implementation would be extremely simple. E.g.:
async def run(async_fn, *args, **kwargs, _clock=None, _instruments=()):
check_no_underscores(kwargs) # raises an error if any keys start with _
...
No magic decorators, so it's totally understandable by naive readers, sphinx, mypy, and pylint. The one wrinkle is that mypy/pylint wouldn't know to flag trio.run(..., _clokc=...)
as an error, but that doesn't seem like a huge issue. (And if we really want to then we could fix it with plugins. It seems like we'll have mypy/pylint plugins in any case, to handle things like trio.open_file
and missing-await detection – see #671 – so adding this feature wouldn't be a huge extra cost.)
Oh, wait, there's a second kind of compositionality problem. There are places where trio generates a kwarg: in particular, nursery.start
automagically passing task_status=...
. And I guess serve
functions might end up passing through the stream as a kwarg too (#563), like handler(peer=stream_obj)
. I think these are the only two places where this comes up.
But, it's not a theoretical problem: the serve
functions both take both a callable and also support task_status
. So if we say that all their kwargs have to start with _
, AND ALSO say that they have to take a kwarg called task_status
, then that's a problem!
What options do we have available?
-
The
serve
functions could go ahead and taketask_status
, even though it's not underscored. It would be a bit awkward to explain why we were breaking our own rule, but not necessarily a big deal?task_status
is already effectively a reserved kwarg name in trio; it doesn't really make sense to have an incoming connection handler that takestask_status
. -
We could switch the
start
protocol to use_task_status
as the name of its magic kwarg. This would be an awkward transition b/c there's no good way to deprecate the old way. (I guess our options would be (a) renamestart
, (b) do a two-round deprecation where we force everyone to add anew_style=True
switch and then force them to remove it again.) But eh, given that it's effectively a magic reserved name anyway, the underscore wouldn't look that weird. This would help theserve
functions. Are there any cases that go the other way, where you want to pass a function-taking-a-function tostart
, and havetask_status
passed through? Of course, we don't support that now either...
Are we worried about similar issues for the peer=
/client=
/whatever-we-call it arg from #563? I'm having trouble thinking of any situation where you'd want to pass a function-that-takes-a-callable to serve
. Maybe run_sync_in_worker_thread
, but then you'd want the peer=
to be passed through. Probably someone can come up with something, though?
I don't feel like I've fully wrapped my head around the issues here.
Meh. I still think that nursery.start_soon.mod(name="foo")(fn, *args, **kwargs)
would work best ("mod" being the shortest name I could think of that still means something reasonable) given that nursery.start_soon(name="foo")(fn, *args, **kwargs)
seems to be too magical for some people's taste. Modifiers on fn
can be achieved very easily, by using fn.mod(bar='baz')
.
I don't like magic underscores; "internal use only" is not the same as "strip the under and feed me to the next part". I'd hate to be required to again resort to functools.partial
except now in a different set of circumstances.
I'd leave task_status
alone. Its default value wants to be renamed, but that's a different issue.
IMHO having _
or __
prefixed kwargs is a horrible kludge and think that using partial is preferable to that - i.e. the cure is worse than the disease!
I personally like @smurfix's solution the best (maybe s/mod/config/
). The verbosity doesn't really bother me and, to me, is greatly preferable to _
prefix kwargs being implicitly passed as config.
The discussion around PEP 570 made me realize an interesting corner case... even if we have a signature like:
async def run(async_fn, *args, **kwargs):
...then technically it's not quite true that you can pass through any kwargs. Specifically, you cannot pass through a kwarg named async_fn
:-)
This may not really matter in practice (in the unlikely case that someone hits it they can use partial
), but I found it surprising.
Here is a perspective that I don't rigidly or fully stand by but which is important and I haven't seen said here:
-
The learning curve for
partial
could be massively reduced if:-
every single function like
trio.run()
just stopped taking*args
to pass to the async function as well, -
the documentation and examples as a result showed
partial
being used all over the place, -
(if needed) the documentation linked to a small and really intuitive summary of what
partial
is and why it is good.
-
-
Every time you force people to use
partial
you make the world a little better, because:-
partial
is amazingly versatile and uses for it tend to turn up in many unexpected places, -
developers who "think with"
partial
are thus more versatile developers, -
passing arguments along with a callable is a distinct code feature, extra functionality, and
partial
properly pulls and abstracts just that feature into its own composable form, making it unnecessary for people to keep reimplementing it, -
partial
makes it easier to- verify correctness,
- write correct code, and
- understand what the code is doing
with less mental overhead, without having to jump around to other parts of the code or documentation to verify what happens to the arguments being passed through.
-
Personally, both in my own code and at work,
-
I intentionally avoid, change, and push back against any interface that accepts arguments along with callables anywhere that
partial
will do, and -
I push for
partial
overfunctools.partial
, even as I advocate for everything else to be properly namespaced, because the latter is a pain to write and because partial application is a fundamental operation, like+
.
And I have been happier ever since, enjoying in particular a greater smoothness of thought due to no longer having to do a depth-first search of the possible future effects and uses of this kind of argument passthrough.
I do get frustrated having to write calls to partial
sometimes, but then I remember that code is read more than it is written, and that my insistence on partial
-only argument passthrough has significant return on investment in people being able to
- learn by example,
- write more robustly correct code,
- write more future-proof code, and
- verify code correctness
with less overhead. And that makes the upfront nuisance of writing partial
not feel so bad.
TL;DR: forcing people to always use partial
is good in some significant, permeating ways that are really worth weighing here.
I thought of yet another possibility recently: Say that if you want to pass Trio options, you need to pass the function to call through a kwarg too (target=
?), and use partial
if it takes arguments. If you don't want to pass Trio options, you can pass the function and its positional and keyword arguments without a layer of partial
. We distinguish the two cases based on whether we got any positional arguments.
So you'd have nursery.start_soon(fn, arg1, kwarg=value)
but nursery.start_soon(target=partial(fn, arg1, kwarg=value), name="hi")
.
This can be represented nicely in type stubs using @overload
for the benefit of static checkers, and is at least reasonably amenable to a clean deprecation.
Downside: it doesn't play very nicely with #563. :-(
@oremanj That's a pretty neat idea actually, although based on my experience my immediate intuition is that this feels rather likely to trip people up, especially because it's harder to implement it in combination with #563 (speaking of, I wrote some thoughts on that issue that are relevant here, thanks for pointing that issue out).
Like I'm picturing a situation where someone has nursery.start_soon(fn, arg, kwarg=kwarg)
and decides "don't need to pass arg
anymore" and deletes it and moves on - because that's the cognition flow that normally works when we no longer need to pass an argument. So to get it right everyone would have to train an additional thought habit: "oh wait does this function completely change how it interprets any of its other arguments based on the the presence of a different argument?"
But developing and diligently using such mental habits is costly, and maintaining that mental habit as a general case would be an uphill battle because almost all of the time the answer would be "no" and it would be time wasted, so the mind would naturally try to unlearn it. And if you had to special case it to certain functions that would be additional mental cost, and would require more proactive, out-of-the-way mental rehearsals of the memory/"cognition snag" that would trigger that mental check in response to it being one of the functions that it applies to.
And that's the kind of situation shape that in my experience leads people to make code changes that they think are so obviously correct that they don't notice were actually wrong until some time/confusion/debugging/deployments later.
Type checkers that can handle overloads would catch it, but in many situations people either don't use them, or only use them at the end of a lot of different modifications, or frequently but still manually, and in any case it would be a jarring "wait... what? why?" experience.
So after further thought I would advise against, but it was good creative thinking.
Looking at this again after a long absence (partly motivated by https://github.com/python-trio/trio/issues/1104#issuecomment-630000695), I'm wondering why we never considered borrowing Python's dunder convention:
trio.run(f, x=1, __clock__=custom_clock)
nursery.start_soon(f, x=1, __name__="custom name")
await trio.to_thread.run_sync(f, x=1, __limiter__=custom_limiter)
A key thing here is that every one of these kwargs is an exotic feature that beginners will never see. AFAIK there are only two exceptions to that, which are the port
argument to serve_tcp
and the port
and ssl_context
arguments to serve_ssl_over_tcp
(and tbh the latter is already a semi-advanced topic, because configuring SSLContext
s is not for the faint of heart). OTOH serve_tcp
does show up in your classic 10-line echo server that you put on the top of your README.
But we can solve that by making it:
await trio.serve_tcp(port, handler, *args, **kwargs)
(i.e., flipping the position of port
and handler
compared to what we have today).
The one obnoxious bit is backcompat, but I guess this is actually not too bad, because port
is always an integer and handler
is never an integer, so you can use a runtime type check to detect when someone has the arguments backwards, issue a warning, and flip them the right way around.
Ooh, I like using dunders a lot better than just leading underscores.
Friendly amendment: can we use _sunder_
names rather than __dunder__
names? There's precedent (enum
in the standard library), it's a little less noisy/magical-seeming, and it's still very unlikely to clash with a normal function kwarg.
The reordered serve_*
arguments actually read better than the original to me: "serve_tcp
on port using handler". We could similarly do "serve_ssl_
with context over_tcp
on port using handler", and "serve_listeners
these using handler".