CODEWITHSUNDEEP
python
KnightOfNi
KnightOfNi

Reputation: 850

Is it more "pythonic" to use str() instead of ""?

As most Python users know, there are two ways of creating x as an empty string or list (or, for integers, 0). You could do:

x = str()
y = list()
z = int()

or, you could do:

x = ""
y = []
z = 0

I know that these are semantically identical statements, but is one more encouraged than the other (as map() is encouraged in some cases over for x in y...)?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 307

Answers (3)

mgilson
mgilson

Reputation: 309881

I like to live by the mantra "say what you mean". If you want an empty string, use "". If you want 0, use 0.

The function form is useful for getting an empty value of an arbitrary builtin:

d = defaultdict(list)

As a side benefit, when you use literals it is also marginally faster since python doesn't need to look up int, str, list which could be shadowed.

It is worth pointing out that there are famous pythonistas who would disagree with me.

Upvotes: 2

user2867522
user2867522

Reputation:

str([object]) returns a printable representation of an object.

list([iterable]) returns a list based off of iterable

int([object]) converts a string or number to integer.

Each of these functions return a default value if no parameter is passed. I'm not sure why you'd use these functions instead of "", [] and 0.

Upvotes: 2

Bartosz Marcinkowski
Bartosz Marcinkowski

Reputation: 6861

I think it is more common and more pythonic to do

x = ""
y = []
z = 0

It is more explicit, because you don't expect the reader to know what is the default value for a type.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions