boB Stepp <robertvst...@gmail.com> writes: > My current understanding of function length best practice is that: 1) > Each function should have preferably ONE clearly defined purpose.
Yes, that's a principle to follow firmly, improving the design every time. I know of no exceptions. “Clearly defined” also entails the function signature (its name, what parameters it accepts, what return value it emits) is narrowly defined. > 2) I have seen varying recommendations as to number of lines of code > per function, but I have seem multiple recommendations that a function > generally should fit into one screen on one's monitor. A function that is clearly-designed, as above, should have no more than a handful of statements. That's intentionally vague, but it's already shorter than “a screenful”. > Of course, some people have HUGE monitors! And I assume that any > guidance applies equally well to methods. Any function with statements stretching over 20 lines is already too large, IMO. Note that the docstring can be rather lengthy, if there is a lot to say about the function's purpose or strange cases it handles. > Am I on-track or am I getting carried away? You're right to care about precision in your code. Overlong, overbroad, overcomplex, overdetermined functions happen through laziness; it takes diligence to keep the code readable through refactoring while you go. That takes more effort at each edit, but saves a lot of debugging time. Having such a principle in mind, and knowing that it's worth spending effort to uphold, will serve you well. -- \ “Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a | `\ dog, it's too dark to read.” —Groucho Marx | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
