I know what I am asking is rather niche, but it has been bugging me for quite a while. Suppose I have the following function:

def foo(return_more: bool):
   ....
    if return_more:
        return data, more_data
   return data

You can imagine it is a function that may return more data if given a flag.

How should I typehint this function? When I use the function in both ways

data = foo(False)

data, more_data = foo(True)

either the first or the 2nd statement would say that the function cannot be assigned due to wrong size of return tuple.

Is having variable signature an anti-pattern? Is Python’s typehinting mechanism not powerful enough and thus I am forced to ignore this error?

Edit: Thanks for all the suggestions. I was enlightened by this suggestion about the existence of overload and this solution fit my requirements perfectly

from typing import overload, Literal

@overload
def foo(return_more: Literal[False]) -> Data: ...

@overload
def foo(return_more: Literal[True]) -> tuple[Data, OtherData]: ...

def foo(return_more: bool) -> Data | tuple[Data, OtherData]:
   ....
    if return_more:
        return data, more_data
   return data

a = foo(False)
a,b = foo(True)
a,b = foo(False) # correctly identified as illegal
  • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    from typing import Union is probably what you’re looking for, but yes, I’d argue you should try to avoid that kind of pattern, even if it’s convenient.

    Sorry for the triple(?) notifications. Trying out the beta version of the boost app and it’s still a bit buggy.

    • 0WN3D@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought about it, but it isn’t as expressive as I wished.

      Meaning if I do

      a = foo(return_more=True)
      or
      a, b = foo(return_more=False)
      

      it doesn’t catch these errors for me.

      In comparison, the other suggested solution does catch these.

      • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, good point, the linked answer seems better suited (even if I would still recommended not having a variable return). I appreciate the feedback!

  • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    always return more, than you can

    data, _ = foo(false)

    data, more_data = foo(true)

    and write a good documentation in the function, why it has different return amounts.

    A boolean toggle should influence the process, but not change the sigmature. Maybe two functions are better?

    getfoo() and getmorefoo()?

    • 0WN3D@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      yea, this is pretty close to what I’m looking for.

      The only missing piece is the ability to define the overload methods on the bool

      something like

      @overload
      def foo(return_more: True) -> (Data, Data)
      
      @overload
      def foo(return_more: False) -> Data
      

      But I don’t think such constructs are possible? I know it is possible in Typescript to define the types using constants, but I don’t suppose Python allows for this?

      EDIT: At first, when I tried the above, the typechecker said Literal[True] was not expected and I thought it was not possible. But after experimenting some, I figured out that it is actually possible. Added my solution to the OP

      Thanks for the tip!

    • eternacht@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the real answer, overloads are meant for exactly this purpose.

      It’ll be something like this:

      from typing import Literal, overload
      
      @overload
      def foo() -> Data: …
      @overload
      def foo(return_more: Literal[True]) -> tuple[Data, Data]: …
      def foo(return_more: bool = False) -> Data | tuple[Data, Data]
          ...
          if return_more:
              return data, more_data
         return data
      
    • nikaro@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Python >= 3.10 version:

      def foo(return_more: bool) -> DataType | tuple[DataType, MoreDataType]: ...
      

      But i would definitely avoid to do that if possible. I would maybe do something like this instead:

      def foo(return_more: bool) -> tuple[DataType, MoreDataType | None]:
          ...
          if return_more:
              return data, more_data
         return data, None
      

      Or if data is a dict, just update it with more_data:

      def foo(return_more: bool) -> dict[str, Any]:
          ...
          if return_more:
              return data.update(more_data)
         return data
      
    • gigachad@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You can also consider the new union that was introduced with Python 3.10, check PEP604 for details:

      def foo(return_more: bool) -> Type1 | tuple[Type2,Type3]: