Bart Willems wrote: > dmitrey wrote: >> 1st still is shorter by 1 char; considering majority of people use >> space after comma & number of parameters can be big it yileds >> foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 >> vs >> foo(bar, baz, bar2, bar3, bar4) > > I think most readers already agree on the ambiguities part. Now, for the > length of the code... > I agree that in you example the first syntax yields a full /five/ spaces > less than the second syntax. However, it ignores the fact that if you > are creating functions with that many arguments, you are probably doing > something wrong. Can't those arguments be provided as a list?
I'm in danger of getting short-tempered on c.l.py for the first time in a long time. If you think that five arguments is an excessive number for a function then you live in a world of toy programs. > Let's see what is shorter: > > foo bar baz bar2 bar3 bar4 > or > foo *bars > > Not to mention that it might (or might not) be a good idea to wrap the > function in some kind of class where you can specify a whole bunch of > attributes, so that you do not have to call a function with that many > arguments to start with. Right, I think I have to assume that you're taking the piss. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
