On 2010-02-03 15:37 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:18:40 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 14:10 +0300, Vladimir Ignatov wrote:
Hello,
I am sitting here for quite some time, but usually keep silent ;-) I
use Python since 2003 both "professionally" and for my hobby projects
and love it a much.
I notice however, that "maintaining" existing/older python code is may
be not so enjoyable task. It may be even harder than supporting old
code written in some type of "static" languages (like Java or C++).
Surely "dynamic" nature of python comes with price.
Yes, it certainly does. Not that you'll get many Pythonistas to confess
to that fact. Somehow those who brag about the readability and
expressiveness of source code just cannot admit that:
class.method(sting name, int count)
- is *obviously* more expressive than -
class.method(name, count)
Obviously? I don't know about that. Being told that "count" is an int
doesn't really help me -- it's obvious just from the name. In a well-
written API, what else could it be?
A bool. As in telling the method whether or not it should count something.
That said, I agree with your later point that this kind of information is better
provided by the docstring, not the call signature. Not least because the "type"
may be something wishy-washy and ad-hoc like "sequence" or "string or list of
strings". I do wish that people would document their parameters with this
information a little more consistently, though.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
