Implicit keyword arguments for Python

Python functions can use both positional and keyword arguments; the latter provide a certain level of documentation for an argument and its meaning, while allowing them to be given in any order in a call. But it is often the case that the name of the local variable to be passed is the same as the keyword, which can lead to overly repetitive argument lists, at least in some eyes. A recent proposal to shorten the syntax for calls with these duplicate names seems to be gaining some steam—a Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) is forthcoming—though there are some who find it to be an unnecessary and unwelcome complication for the language.

Parameters and arguments

The parameter list of a Python function describes the names of its parameters; those parameters are matched up with the arguments that get passed in a call to the function. For example:

    def func(a, b, c=3, d=None):   # definition with four parameters
        pass

    func(1, b=42, c=9, d=6)        # a call with four arguments

    func(a=a, b=b, c=c, d=d)

    func2(visibility=visibility, frobnification_level=frobnification_level)

His original suggestion was as follows:

    # instead of this:
    func2(visibility=visibility, frobnification_level=frobnification_level)

    # this could be used:
    func2(=visibility, =frobnification_level)

Nir Schulman thought that it made more sense to put the "=" at the end of the parameter name; it may be easier to implement that way and it is analogous to the f-string f'{var=}' construct.

    func2(visibility=, frobnification_level=)

There were several commenters who were in favor of the idea and the "postfix" version, with the = after the parameter name, proved to be more popular, so it seems likely to be the syntax proposed in the PEP. But "Miraculixx" strongly disagreed; it will confuse beginners, they said, who are already somewhat confused by keyword arguments. They had their own list of quarrels with the idea (with nods to PEP 20 as well), many of which come down to personal preference (as, of course, do the benefits Bambrick listed). But Miraculixx also pointed out that it could lead to a somewhat subtle and possibly hard-to-find error: "renaming the variable in the calling context will break the code and it is not obvious to fix".

Paul Moore agreed with those arguments, noting that he would not use the feature himself, nor allow it in projects he maintains. He said that he can live with it if the feature gets added, but: "Python does seem to be gaining features I'm preferring not to use much more than features I'm enthusiastic about, these days :("

Numbers

Chris Angelico, who was one of those who volunteered to help with the PEP, thought that some of Miraculixx's complaints were not entirely reasonable. Angelico also did some research on the prevalence of "var=var" in the Python standard library; he found 3858 examples, which suggests to him that there is a real need for the feature. Likewise, Hugo van Kemenade found many instances of the pattern in other Python code bases. Angelico said that the short "x=x" examples do not really do justice to the idea; his search found 525 places where the identifiers were ten or more characters in length (310 if the unit tests are eliminated):

And I would absolutely argue that there's clarity to be gained here:

    ElementTree(element).write(stream, encoding,
                               xml_declaration=xml_declaration,
                               default_namespace=default_namespace,
                               method=method,
                               short_empty_elements=short_empty_elements)

# vs #

    ElementTree(element).write(stream, encoding,
                               xml_declaration=,
                               default_namespace=,
                               method=,
                               short_empty_elements=)

He further argued that brevity, in and of itself, is not really the goal; instead, the feature will help people spot problems:

When xml_declaration= is the norm, it's obvious that xml_declaration=html_declaration must be intentional and cannot possibly be a transcription error (okay, that particular example probably wouldn't happen, but you get the idea).

Inevitably, some bikeshedding over naming took place. Tamás Hadházy asked: "what this syntactic sugar should be called?" Ideas ranged from "implicit named arguments" through "abbreviated keyword arguments" and "elided keyword arguments" to "shorthand-keyword-arguments" (and others). Bambrick noted that other languages call it "punning", though the reasons for that may be a little obscure. There was no real consensus on a name, though Bambrick did use "punning" in an example pull request (PR) with a massive diff that modifies the standard library to use the new syntax.

The conversation soon wandered back to the feature itself. James Webber wondered if the perceived need for it was actually due to "bad ergonomics" of various sorts in function definitions:

Maybe I've converted too many things to be keyword-only, or I've ordered my arguments in a silly way (like, put uncommonly-specified arguments too early). Syntactic sugar covers up the mess a little but the code itself could be improved.

Moore agreed; "this feels like it's helping to make functions with lots of keyword arguments more tolerable, but maybe there's an underlying problem where a better API design would avoid the need for lots of keyword arguments in the first place?" Beyond that, though, the feature encourages using the same variable name inside and outside the function definition, which has some downsides: "the first is that it makes refactoring (a little) harder, and the second is that it discourages using more meaningful, less generic names for the variables in the caller".

But Angelico noted that the statistics tell a different story: "[...] this already happens in huge numbers of places. Clearly it's often the best choice even without this feature." Bambrick's changes for the standard library, and a similar example PR for pandas seemed to harden the opposition to the feature somewhat. Several responses in the thread indicated that the changes did not improve readability, at least for most commenters, though there were also a few new messages in support.

Some other possibilities for the syntax were mooted, though no real consensus emerged. Like many others, it is a proposal with some strong advocates and roughly as many naysayers. The PEP should help further the discussion, but the feature may well be too niche—and too disruptive—to go much beyond that. As alluded to by Moore and others, there seems to be some concerted effort toward proposing fairly small changes at the corners of the language these days. It remains to be seen whether the steering council (or its delegate) is amenable to that.

fn connect(To { addr, port }: To) {
    // `addr` and `port` are directly available here, e.g.
    println!("{addr}:{port}");
}

foo( z_pos = z_pos + dz,            # significant
       x_pos=,                      # boring
       y_pos=,
       ... ,
       ... 
)

def do_the_frobnicate(frobnication_method):
  frobnicate(frobnication_method=pass)