Tim Chase <python.l...@tim.thechases.com> writes: Please don't delete attribution line(s), added:
Asun Friere writes: >> >> phone.update_from_record(record) >> >> This switch statement belongs to one guy. One guy who wants to know >> how to do everything that needs to be done to Phones no matter who >> asks > > This is where you make a false assumption -- the contents and parsing > of the "switch" are provider-specific in this case, mapping to a > common ontology of the Phone object: In that case, why not give the classes Asun suggested all the same base class: Phone? >> I wonder if you agree that it's bit cleaner now? It's an effective >> solution. I'm making no representation that it's the best. > > It's clean if it were the solution to my problem -- however, the mess > comes from the profusion of provider formats. Yup, and there is no other solution to that than to convert them to something universal. > Yes, having been programming since I was in middle-school (quick > calculation yields a "boy I'm old" estimate of about 20 years...does > anybody miss 360k 5.25" floppy disks? :) I do miss cassette tapes and the wheeeeeee kkkrggrggrgrgrg of a program loading. -- John Bokma Read my blog: http://johnbokma.com/ Hire me (Perl/Python): http://castleamber.com/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
