Skip to main content

Python: Returning Multiple Things of Different Types

If you are a strong believer in statically typed languages, you won't want to read this post!

Sometimes it makes sense for a function to return multiple things. In such cases, it's common to just return them in a tuple: "return (count, new_obj)".

Sometimes you might want to return objects of different types based on whether an operation succeeded or not. For instance, if the operation was successful, you might return "(True, obj)". If it failed, you might return "(False, reason)". Often, you can use exceptions to handle this situation.

Sometimes you might want to return objects of different types based on arguments to the function. For instance, did the caller ask for the data in this format or that format?

Sometimes you'll want all of these variations at the same time. In such cases, I have found that using a dict for your return value is a good solution. For instance, here is a piece of a docstring that I wrote yesterday:
    Return a dict (which I often call "response") with one or more of the
following as appropriate:

This is a bool to indicate success.

If unsuccessful, this is a Pylons response object that your
controller can return. It will contain an appropriate error
message for the user.

Upon success, this is the file handle returned by
``urllib2.urlopen``. Per urllib2, it has an ``info()`` method
containing things like headers, etc.

Upon success, if you set ``parse_xml_document=True``, this will
contain the parsed xml_document. I'll take care of parsing errors
with an appropriate pylons_response for you.
The calling code then looks like this:
        server_response = talk_to_server(parse_xml_document=True)
if not server_response['successful']:
return server_response['pylons_response']
etag = server_response['file_handle'].info().getheader('ETag')
xml_document = server_response['xml_document']
If you read it out loud, the code "reads" easily, and yet it has the flexibility to contain all the different things I need to return. If I ask for something that isn't there, I get an exception, which is life as usual for a Python programmer.


Anonymous said…
I've seen this in a few places, but with the slight change that the return is a new type, and the keys are attributes. The benefits are:

1. slightly shorter syntax to access to the results:
server_response = talk(p)
xml_document = server_response.xml_document
# except if you give server_response a short name, then you might not even bother reassigning the xml_document value to its own variable name

2. clearer output when people print or inspect the result:
>>> print talk(p)
<server_response with some interesting summary of the pieces of the result>
>>> help(talk(p).xml_document) # might work if you use properties

Also, your (False, reason) example doesn't look very pythonic to me. I can't think of why you wouldn't use an exception, which itself might be annotated with some other attributes.
John Speno said…
I like it.
EY said…
And in Python 2.6, you'll also be able to use named tuples via collections.NamedTuple.
Anonymous said…
Why do you say strongly typed advocates should not ready your post?
I return proper values or error values all the time. In a completely strongly typed a and checked manner. And with simpler syntax. Just pick your language.
(Mine is Haskell.)
Simon Wittber said…
Actually, the text reads:

If you are a strong believer in statically typed languages, you won't want to read this post!

Strong != Static
Anonymous said…
What anonymous above is referring to is Haskell's Maybe datatype. See also the Either datatype just below that.

James Graves
jjinux said…
I know about Maybe and Either. Thanks for the reminder, though.

When I said "If you are a strong believer in statically typed languages, you won't want to read this post!" I was referring to the fact that many Java programmers might get upset about the fact that I was using a dict in order to get around having to declare exactly what I was going to return.

Naturally, Maybe in Haskell is strongly typed, so it's a different ball of wax. Furthermore, in Haskell, it's quite natural to return a big list of stuff and do pattern matching on the return value.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p