On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 6:20 PM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 3:55 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development > <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > That being said, I can live with the current solution, but'd ideally > > > > like a comment or something to make the return value Tuple a bit more > > > > obvious. > > > > > > A comment to explain that Tuple == multiple return values from a func? > > > Or something else? > > > > Friendly ping. > > Do we want a comment like this? > > > > # Note: Python uses tuples internally for multiple return values > > def foo() -> Tuple[int, int] > > return 0, 1 > > > > Whoops -- forgot to send my response to this. > > I was less worried about explaining the concept of multiple return > values, and more about naming what the return values were: that the > first one is the result information, and the second is the parsed > test. > > That being said, it's reasonably obvious from the types in this case, > so I'm okay leaving this as-is, though in general I'm wary of tuples > when the order doesn't matter, and a struct-style thing (with named > members) fits that better. Ack. Yeah, in this case I don't think creating a new type to name each value is worth it. >From what I've seen of python codebases, this info is usually captured in docstrings, but yeah, this particular case seems straightforward enough that it doesn't need it. > > I'm no Python expert though, so don't let my whinging get too much in the way. > > -- David
