Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote: > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:19:12 +0000, Odysseus wrote: > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Another issue is testing. If you rely on global names it's harder to test >>> individual functions. [...] >>> >>> In programs without such global names you see quite clearly in the >>> ``def`` line what the function expects as input. >> Good points, although thorough commenting can go a long way to help on >> both counts. In theory, at least ... > > Won't work in practice so well. Say we have function `f()` and > document that it expects global name `a` to be set to something before > calling it. `f()` is used by other functions so we have to document `a` in > all other functions too. If we change `f()` to rely on global name `b` > too we have to hunt down every function that calls `f()` and add the > documentation for `b` there too. It's much work and error prone. Easy to > get inconsistent or missing documentation this way. > Essentially what Marc is saying is that you want your functions to be as loosely coupled to their environment as practically possible. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(computer_science) [...] regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
