On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:24:50 -0400 "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:10:39 -0400, "Eric V. Smith" <e...@trueblade.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > I too prefer the median_low naming rather than median.low. I'm not > sure I can articulate why, but certainly the fact that that latter > isn't used anywhere else in the stdlib that I can think of is > probably a lot of it :)
Count me in the Agreement Car, with Mark and RDM. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
