On 08/15/2013 01:58 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info > <mailto:st...@pearwood.info>> wrote: > > > - Each scheme ended up needing to be a separate function, for ease > of both implementation and testing. So I had four private median > functions, which I put inside a class to act as namespace and avoid > polluting the main namespace. Then I needed a "master function" to > select which of the methods should be called, with all the > additional testing and documentation that entailed. > > > That's just an implementation issue, though, and sounds like a minor > inconvenience to the implementor rather than anything serious; I don't > think that that should dictate the API that's used. > > - The API doesn't really feel very Pythonic to me. For example, we > write: > > > And I guess this is subjective: conversely, the API you're proposing > doesn't feel Pythonic to me. :-) I'd like the hear the opinion of other > python-dev readers.
I agree with Mark: the proposed median, median.low, etc., doesn't feel right. Is there any example of doing this in the stdlib? I suggest just median(), median_low(), etc. If we do end up keeping it, simpler than the callable singleton is: >>> def median(): return 'median' ... >>> def _median_low(): return 'median.low' ... >>> median.low = _median_low >>> del _median_low >>> median() 'median' >>> median.low() 'median.low' Eric. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
