On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Dave Angel <da...@ieee.org> wrote: > Peng Yu wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Wolodja Wentland >> <wentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 16:53 -0500, Peng Yu wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> [ snip ] >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I know that multiple classes or functions are typically defined in one >>>> file (i.e. module in python). However, I feel this make the code not >>>> easy to read. Therefore, I insist on one class or function per file >>>> (i.e module in python). >>>> >>> >>> Are you serious? Do you *really* put each function in its own file? How >>> exactly does this enhance the readability of the source code? Especially >>> if you compare that to a (sic!) modularisation scheme that groups >>> classes and functions together by task or semantic relatedness. >>> >> >> <snip> >> One advantage is on refactoring. When each function has its own file, >> I can change variable names, etc., for a give function without >> worrying accidentally change variable names in other functions. When I >> find a function is more appropriate to put in another namespace, I can >> just move the file around. >> >> > > Variables in a function are already private. How can the names in one > function be affected by other functions in the same module?
You misunderstood me. If there are multiple functions or classes in a file, when I change variables in a function/class, I have to make sure that they are not in other functions or classes. This makes the refactoring process tedious. If I have a single class/function in a file, I can safely change variable names without worrying broken other classes or functions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
