On Thursday 27 August 2009 11:31:41 Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > What you are calculating might actually be quite complicated to enter as > a literal. You might have something like:
8< ---------- Complicated Table Example ------------------------------- Me? - never! I am just an assembler programmer. I would not touch a thing like that with a barge pole. Unless of course, I have to. > Clearly this is a made-up example, but the principle is sound. If Python > can calculate values for you, why not let it do so? It is easier for you, > easier to check that you've calculated them correctly, easier to debug > and read, it makes the algorithm clearer (fewer "magic constants"). Yes, > there is a run-time cost, but you only pay it once, when you import the > module, and it's likely to be not that much more expensive than parsing > the literals anyway. > > Of course, for something as big and complicated as the above table, I'd > almost certainly put the code to calculate it in a function outside of > the class, but that's a matter of style, and it will work to put it > inside the class. It is a hell of a thing if it needs recursion to calculate - If it was really that complex, I would calculate it, check it (if I can), document it and put it in a module of its own, with "This side up", "Fragile", and other warning stickers all over it. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
