Sounds like you are on the right "path" (groan) ;-) On Aug 11, 2013 10:12 p.m., "John Keyes" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Paul, > > Thanks, explicit is indeed better than implicit. > > I like the idea of always returning a generator and then using list() > if needed, but as mentioned earlier I don't want to break any existing > code. > > I could deprecate the current 'find' and then create a new function > that always returns a generator and name it more appropriately. If I > took this approach and the name was explicit then generate_paths > doesn't feel like the correct option. I think find_paths makes more > sense? > > I've even started to question the name of the library now! > > Thanks again, > – John > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Python Ireland" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
