On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:57:08 -0500
Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#> In Python, I would need to do something like:
#>
#> control_code = connection.read_next_control_code()
#> if control_code == +break+:
#> connection.kill()
#> throw blah
#> else if control_code == +status+:
#> connection.send_status_summary()
#> else if control_code == +noop+ || control_code == +keep_alive+:
#> else:
#> error "CONTROL_CODE fell through conditional cascade; was not one of
+BREAK+, +STATUS+, +NOOP+, +KEEP_ALIVE+"
Hardly.
I mean, well, possibly, *you* might need to, but others might just do
things like this:
def main():
connection = "+break+"
def kill():
print "kill",connection
raise "broken-by-client"
def status():
print "status"
def do_nothing():
pass
dispatch =
{"+break+":kill,"+status+":status,"+noop+":do_nothing,"+keep-alive+":do_nothing}
dispatch[connection]()
When you compare the above with your lisp version
#> (let ((control-code (read-next-control-code connection)))
#> (ecase control-code
#> (+break+
#> (kill-connection connection)
#> (throw :broken-by-client))
#> (+status+
#> (send-status-summary connection))
#> ((+noop+ +keep-alive+))))
#> ;; +X+ indicates a constant
you may be able to see that they are pretty similar. Sure, Python does
not have fully functional lambda (which I, personally, consider to be a
drawback, but I understand that it is -- objectively -- a valid design
decision) so one needs to define functions for handling each case, but
there are some benefits to this approach as well.
#> To change what control codes you want to check for, you need to add
#> conditionals
Just as you need to add ecase branches...
#> for them and keep the error text relevant. The reality is that a
#> computer could be doing this for you, leaving your code simpler and
#> more easily changed.
Not really. If you care about the error message, you can use a subclass
of a dictionary instead and provide the correct behaviour when key is
not found.
#> Now someone will complain that the ECASE code means nothing until I
#> understand ECASE. Yep. But once you understand ECASE, you can look
#> at that code and, *at a glance*, see how control flows through it. In
#> the equivalent Python code, I need to walk through each conditional
#> and make sure they're all following the same pattern. If you're not
#> convinced, extend the example to 12 different control codes.
What you say is right, but only for bad Python code. Want to bet I can
write bad Lisp which will be just as unmaintainable?
PS. Good sigmonster, have a cookie!
--
Best wishes,
Slawomir Nowaczyk
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
