“Least Astonishment” and the Mutable Default Argum

Question

Anyone tinkering with Python long enough has been bitten (or torn to pieces) by the following issue:

def foo(a=[]):
    a.append(5)
    return a

Python novices would expect this function to always return a list with only one element: [5]. The result is instead very different, and very astonishing (for a novice):

>>> foo()
[5]
>>> foo()
[5, 5]
>>> foo()
[5, 5, 5]
>>> foo()
[5, 5, 5, 5]
>>> foo()

A manager of mine once had his first encounter with this feature, and called it "a dramatic design flaw" of the language. I replied that the behavior had an underlying explanation, and it is indeed very puzzling and unexpected if you don't understand the internals. However, I was not able to answer (to myself) the following question: what is the reason for binding the default argument at function definition, and not at function execution? I doubt the experienced behavior has a practical use (who really used static variables in C, without breeding bugs?)

Edit:

Baczek made an interesting example. Together with most of your comments and Utaal's in particular, I elaborated further:

>>> def a():
...     print("a executed")
...     return []
... 
>>>            
>>> def b(x=a()):
...     x.append(5)
...     print(x)
... 
a executed
>>> b()
[5]
>>> b()
[5, 5]

To me, it seems that the design decision was relative to where to put the scope of parameters: inside the function or "together" with it?

Doing the binding inside the function would mean that x is effectively bound to the specified default when the function is called, not defined, something that would present a deep flaw: the def line would be "hybrid" in the sense that part of the binding (of the function object) would happen at definition, and part (assignment of default parameters) at function invocation time.

The actual behavior is more consistent: everything of that line gets evaluated when that line is executed, meaning at function definition.

Answer 1

Suppose you have the following code

fruits = ("apples", "bananas", "loganberries")

def eat(food=fruits):
    ...

When I see the declaration of eat, the least astonishing thing is to think that if the first parameter is not given, that it will be equal to the tuple ("apples", "bananas", "loganberries")

However, supposed later on in the code, I do something like

def some_random_function():
    global fruits
    fruits = ("blueberries", "mangos")

then if default parameters were bound at function execution rather than function declaration then I would be astonished (in a very bad way) to discover that fruits had been changed. This would be more astonishing IMO than discovering that your foo function above was mutating the list.

The real problem lies with mutable variables, and all languages have this problem to some extent. Here's a question: suppose in Java I have the following code:

StringBuffer s = new StringBuffer("Hello World!");
Map<StringBuffer,Integer> counts = new HashMap<StringBuffer,Integer>();
counts.put(s, 5);
s.append("!!!!");
System.out.println( counts.get(s) );  // does this work?

Now, does my map use the value of the StringBuffer key when it was placed into the map, or does it store the key by reference? Either way, someone is astonished; either the person who tried to get the object out of the Map using a value identical to the one they put it in with, or the person who can't seem to retrieve their object even though the key they're using is literally the same object that was used to put it into the map (this is actually why Python doesn't allow its mutable built-in data types to be used as dictionary keys).

Your example is a good one of a case where Python newcomers will be surprised and bitten. But I'd argue that if we "fixed" this, then that would only create a different situation where they'd be bitten instead, and that one would be even less intuitive. Moreover, this is always the case when dealing with mutable variables; you always run into cases where someone could intuitively expect one or the opposite behavior depending on what code they're writing.

I personally like Python's current approach: default function arguments are evaluated when the function is defined and that object is always the default. I suppose they could special-case using an empty list, but that kind of special casing would cause even more astonishment, not to mention be backwards incompatible.

Answer 2

This "bug" gave me a lot of overtime work hours! But I'm beginning to see a potential use of it (but I would have liked it to be at the execution time, still)

I'm gonna give you what I see as a useful example.

def example(errors=[]):
    # statements
    # Something went wrong
    mistake = True
    if mistake:
        tryToFixIt(errors)
        # Didn't work.. let's try again
        tryToFixItAnotherway(errors)
        # This time it worked
    return errors

def tryToFixIt(err):
    err.append('Attempt to fix it')

def tryToFixItAnotherway(err):
    err.append('Attempt to fix it by another way')

def main():
    for item in range(2):
        errors = example()
    print '\n'.join(errors)

main()

prints the following

Attempt to fix it
Attempt to fix it by another way
Attempt to fix it
Attempt to fix it by another way

Answer 3

I used to think that creating the objects at runtime would be the better approach. I'm less certain now, since you do lose some useful features, though it may be worth it regardless simply to prevent newbie confusion. The disadvantages of doing so are:

1. Performance

def foo(arg=something_expensive_to_compute())):
    ...

If call-time evaluation is used, then the expensive function is called every time your function is used without an argument. You'd either pay an expensive price on each call, or need to manually cache the value externally, polluting your namespace and adding verbosity.

2. Forcing bound parameters

A useful trick is to bind parameters of a lambda to the current binding of a variable when the lambda is created. For example:

funcs = [ lambda i=i: i for i in range(10)]

This returns a list of functions that return 0,1,2,3... respectively. If the behaviour is changed, they will instead bind i to the call-time value of i, so you would get a list of functions that all returned 9.

The only way to implement this otherwise would be to create a further closure with the i bound, ie:

def make_func(i): return lambda: i
funcs = [make_func(i) for i in range(10)]

3. Introspection

Consider the code:

def foo(a='test', b=100, c=[]):
   print a,b,c

We can get information about the arguments and defaults using the inspect module, which

>>> inspect.getargspec(foo)
(['a', 'b', 'c'], None, None, ('test', 100, []))

This information is very useful for things like document generation, metaprogramming, decorators etc.

Now, suppose the behaviour of defaults could be changed so that this is the equivalent of:

_undefined = object()  # sentinel value

def foo(a=_undefined, b=_undefined, c=_undefined)
    if a is _undefined: a='test'
    if b is _undefined: b=100
    if c is _undefined: c=[]

However, we've lost the ability to introspect, and see what the default arguments are. Because the objects haven't been constructed, we can't ever get hold of them without actually calling the function. The best we could do is to store off the source code and return that as a string.

Answer 4

Why don't you introspect?

I'm really surprised no one has performed the insightful introspection offered by Python (2 and 3 apply) on callables.

Given a simple little function func defined as:

>>> def func(a = []):
...    a.append(5)

When Python encounters it, the first thing it will do is compile it in order to create a code object for this function. While this compilation step is done, Python evaluates* and then stores the default arguments (an empty list [] here) in the function object itself. As the top answer mentioned: the list a can now be considered a member of the function func.

So, let's do some introspection, a before and after to examine how the list gets expanded inside the function object. I'm using Python 3.x for this, for Python 2 the same applies (use __defaults__ or func_defaults in Python 2; yes, two names for the same thing).

Function Before Execution:

>>> def func(a = []):
...     a.append(5)
...     

After Python executes this definition it will take any default parameters specified (a = [] here) and cram them in the __defaults__ attribute for the function object (relevant section: Callables):

>>> func.__defaults__
([],)

O.k, so an empty list as the single entry in __defaults__, just as expected.

Function After Execution:

Let's now execute this function:

>>> func()

Now, let's see those __defaults__ again:

>>> func.__defaults__
([5],)

Astonished? The value inside the object changes! Consecutive calls to the function will now simply append to that embedded list object:

>>> func(); func(); func()
>>> func.__defaults__
([5, 5, 5, 5],)

So, there you have it, the reason why this 'flaw' happens, is because default arguments are part of the function object. There's nothing weird going on here, it's all just a bit surprising.

The common solution to combat this is to use None as the default and then initialize in the function body:

def func(a = None):
    # or: a = [] if a is None else a
    if a is None:
        a = []

Since the function body is executed anew each time, you always get a fresh new empty list if no argument was passed for a.

---

To further verify that the list in __defaults__ is the same as that used in the function func you can just change your function to return the id of the list a used inside the function body. Then, compare it to the list in __defaults__ (position [0] in __defaults__) and you'll see how these are indeed refering to the same list instance:

>>> def func(a = []): 
...     a.append(5)
...     return id(a)
>>>
>>> id(func.__defaults__[0]) == func()
True

All with the power of introspection!

---

^* To verify that Python evaluates the default arguments during compilation of the function, try executing the following:

def bar(a=input('Did you just see me without calling the function?')): 
    pass  # use raw_input in Py2

as you'll notice, input() is called before the process of building the function and binding it to the name bar is made.

Answer 5

It may be true that:

1. Someone is using every language/library feature, and
2. Switching the behavior here would be ill-advised, but

it is entirely consistent to hold to both of the features above and still make another point:

3. It is a confusing feature and it is unfortunate in Python.

The other answers, or at least some of them either make points 1 and 2 but not 3, or make point 3 and downplay points 1 and 2. But all three are true.

It may be true that switching horses in midstream here would be asking for significant breakage, and that there could be more problems created by changing Python to intuitively handle Stefano's opening snippet. And it may be true that someone who knew Python internals well could explain a minefield of consequences. However,

The existing behavior is not Pythonic, and Python is successful because very little about the language violates the principle of least astonishment anywhere near this badly. It is a real problem, whether or not it would be wise to uproot it. It is a design flaw. If you understand the language much better by trying to trace out the behavior, I can say that C++ does all of this and more; you learn a lot by navigating, for instance, subtle pointer errors. But this is not Pythonic: people who care about Python enough to persevere in the face of this behavior are people who are drawn to the language because Python has far fewer surprises than other language. Dabblers and the curious become Pythonistas when they are astonished at how little time it takes to get something working--not because of a design fl--I mean, hidden logic puzzle--that cuts against the intuitions of programmers who are drawn to Python because it Just Works.

Answer 6

A simple workaround using None

>>> def bar(b, data=None):
...     data = data or []
...     data.append(b)
...     return data
... 
>>> bar(3)
[3]
>>> bar(3)
[3]
>>> bar(3)
[3]
>>> bar(3, [34])
[34, 3]
>>> bar(3, [34])
[34, 3]